Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
(By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 22 February.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 26 February at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As the 16 Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

PENZANCE SOUTH PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
(By Order)

VENTNOR HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
(By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL
(By Order)

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HUMBERSIDE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
(By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Child Poverty Action Group

Mr. Marten Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss taxation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I have not met them as a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Jones: When the Chancellor meets representatives of the group, I hope that he will have some good news for them on child benefit which, as he knows, is the best way to give support to families on low incomes. I hope that he will raise child benefit in line with inflation because, as he knows, it has been eroded since 1987 when his Government's manifesto commitment was to "pay it as now". Surely that should not mean to pay it as it was paid in monetary terms, but that it should be uprated in line with inflation. I hope that the Chancellor will take that point on board in his next Budget and put that right.

Mr. Major: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his views. As he knows, we have a statutory obligation to review child benefit every year before the public expenditure round, and that has occurred. On the point about the freeze on child benefit in the past two years, the hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a compensating increase in income support and family credit, precisely to meet the point about low pay to which he referred.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When considering the answer that he has just given, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that quite a number of his colleagues, let alone Opposition Members, feel strongly that child benefit is the only income of some women, who appreciate its being uprated whenever possible?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reminder. As she knows, child benefit was introduced by the present Government and at present costs £4½ billion, all of which is paid to the wife.

Mrs. Beckett: Surely all that the Chancellor needs to say when he meets the Child Poverty Action Group is that, as the social security Minister who gave the pledge in the manifesto about child benefit, he feels morally bound to uprate it in line with inflation?

Mr. Major: It is always a pleasure to have advice from the hon. Lady, although it may be that I do not get quite as much advice from her as her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Nevertheless, I am pleased with the advice that she has given and shall certainly bear it in mind if I meet Miss Fran Bennett and her colleagues.

Manufacturing Productivity

Mr. Wood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth during the 1980s of manufacturing productivity in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other major industrial countries.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): The average growth of output per person employed in United Kingdom manufacturing industry between 1980 and 1988 was 5·3 per cent., contrasted with 3·4 per cent. for the other Group of Seven economies.

Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging response. Is not it also true that productivity in British industry has risen substantially above that in Japan? Does my hon. Friend agree that extra investment in new manufacturing industry, such as is happening in Stevenage, where over £600 million is being spent by Glaxo, British Aerospace and other companies, is the answer, to ensure that we have good manufacturing prospects?

Mr. Ryder: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's latter point. On his first point, manufacturing productivity growth in Britain over the past decade has been higher than that of any other leading western nation, including the United States and Japan.

Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister tell the whole story about productivity in manufacturing? Why does not he also say that during the past 10 years of this Tory Government, more than 900,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Great Britain, many of them in the north and the west midlands? Will he also say that in West Germany there is a balance of payments surplus, equivalent to £50 billion, while Britain is running a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion? There is the contrast.

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman may not know that manufacturing employment has been falling in every leading western nation for the past decade and more. Furthermore, manufacturing unemployment did not start rising in 1979, when this Conservative Government came to office, or in 1970 when the previous Conservative Government came to office. Manufacturing employment began to fall in 1966, the year that a Labour Government were re-elected.

Mr. Marlow: What is my hon. Friend's view on bringing about a major increase in the productivity of East German manufacturing industry, by British taxpayers providing vast amounts of money through the European Community budget to improve East German manufacturing industry?

Mr. Ryder: Earlier this week, I attended a meeting of Ecofin in Brussels at which the West German Finance Minister told us about the latest developments in the sphere to which my hon. Friend referred. It is inconceivable that the West German Finance Minister is unaware of my hon. Friend's views.

Tax Evasion

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to cut down on tax evasion.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The Government are strongly opposed to tax evasion, which is why we have doubled the number of staff engaged in anti-evasion work. We have increased the penalties, which had not been increased since 1960,

implemented the bulk of the Keith committee's recommendations, simplified the tax system and reduced punitive tax rates, which invited avoidance and evasion.

Mr. Ross: Is it not true that according to the latest National Audit Office report, almost £4 billion or 15·5 per cent. of assessed tax revenues were uncollected in 1988? If the tax collection system was as efficient now as it was 10 years ago, we should have an extra £1·5 billion of revenue.

Mr. Lilley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. If he reads the Treasury's reply to the committee, he will see that the sum of money is notional and that it has been normal for large amounts to be under assessment while assessments are waiting to be fixed. The actual amount that remains uncollected is only about one fifth.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend believe that shifting the burden of taxation from a direct to an indirect basis is altogether helpful, to avoid this problem?

Mr. Lilley: That is certainly one of the factors that enter into the equation. However, I should also lay emphasis on reducing top tax rates. The previous Labour Government, when they had rates of 83 and 98 per cent., collected tax from only 30,000 taxpayers. Now, at the rate of income in real terms at which they would have been paying 83 per cent., 190,000 taxpayers declare their income.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister's general commitment is not matched by the detail that he has given the House. According to the performance indicators in the public expenditure documents that we discussed in the House on Tuesday, the Inland Revenue's cost per employee on income tax cases has fallen. If the resources have been saved—I doubt whether they have—will the Government merge the special office and the inquiry branch—a reform which they have been putting off since 1985—in order to clamp down on corporate fraud?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the figures, he will find that there has been a sixfold increase in the amount successfully recovered by the tax evasion unit. That is good news.

Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend have it in mind to introduce any measures to prevent the Labour party from giving evasive answers about the proposed roof tax?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. One of the worst types of tax evasion is for the Labour party to evade giving the British people details of the taxes that it proposes to impose on them. We should like to see an end to the evasion of many questions on the roof tax. Is the Inland Revenue to be invited to hand over details of individuals' taxation to local authorities? Will individuals see their tax burden rise with every increase in the capital value of their house?

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of manufacturing investment in each of the last two quarters.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Manufacturing investment was £3,163 million and £2,784 million at 1985 prices in the third and fourth


quarters of 1989 respectively. Manufacturing investment reached a record level in 1989, after six years of growth averaging 8 per cent.

Mr. Marshall: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, does he accept that the Government have an appalling investment record? The share of manufacturing investment in GDP fell by one quarter between 1978 and 1988. Does not that prove the Government's utter contempt for the nation's manufacturing prospects and their preference to grab what they can from the sinking ship?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says notwithstanding my answer, as if somehow he did not want to hear the facts in it. The facts are that between 1983 and 1989 investment grew by 8 per cent. on average, but under the previous Labour Government manufacturing investment grew by 1½ per cent. per annum. Manufacturing investment is now 7¼ per cent. above the level in 1979. It grew by 5½ per cent. last year and it is now at a record level. It may surprise Opposition Members to hear that manufacturing output in the 1980s grew faster in Britain than in Germany.

Mr. Burt: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to calculate the effect of the strike at Ford on manufacturing investment? Does he agree that it behoves all parties in the House that want to see manufacturing investment to support companies such as Ford, which want to invest in Britain, not those who are striking and so putting at risk future investment in Britain?

Mr. Lamont: Two factors are important for manufacturing investment. One is increased profitability and the other is improved industrial relations. Both have improved enormously under the Government and in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party.

Mr. Strang: What effect are interest rates that are much higher than those of any of our European competitors having on investment intentions? Is falling manufacturing investment consistent with an on-going economic miracle? When does the Chief Secretary expect interest rates to start falling?

Mr. Lamont: It is expected that manufacturing will continue to grow faster than non-oil GDP. Obviously, investment will, to some extent, be affected by interest rates, but it is important that we should reduce demand of which investment is part. The fact remains that in recent years we have had extremely strong investment growth, including strong manufacturing investment growth.

Personal Savings

Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to promote personal savings and investment.

Mr. Major: There have been a range of measures to encourage savings and investment in recent years.

Mr. French: Has my right hon. Friend been able to assess the popularity of personal equity plans following the improvements made to that scheme by his distinguished predecessor? Notwithstanding present high mortgage commitments, are not more and more people investing in PEPs?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the personal equity plan schemes. He will be delighted to know that the number of plans taken up and the amount invested are now running at higher levels than at any time.

Dr. Marek: As so often, the right hon. Gentleman talks about savings for those who are basically rich enough to afford advice on how to save. What does he intend to do for the ordinary saver, the person who is being crucified by the present high mortgage rates?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may conceivably not have noticed it or remembered it, but independent taxation comes into force from 1 April this year, which will be of considerable help to the married woman saver.

Interest Rates

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about interest rates and their effect on the economy.

Mr. Major: I have received a number of such representations.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in the House and outside it admire the way in which he has tackled his job in the few short weeks that he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he further accept that many of us hope that the belief that the pound and interest rates ought to be tied to the deutschmark has been buried? Because of the Germans' headlong and precipitant flight to a new fatherland, their inflation is likely to be very high. If Germany's interest rates increase 1 per cent., may we have an assurance that our interest rates need not follow, because British industry could not sustain such a rise or compete with it?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. As to the second part, I shall continue to judge interest rate levels against what I think is right for the country's counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Beith: Does the Chancellor realise that yesterday's announcement by one building society of increased mortgage rates spells personal tragedy for many people as well as great pressure on wage negotiations in the coming year? Can the Chancellor give the other building societies any hope of a reduction in interest rates while he refuses to make a clear commitment to Britain's early entry into the exchange rate mechanism, or should all building societies increase their interest rates in anticipation that base rates will remain high?

Mr. Major: It would be very attractive to be able to stand here and say that I foresee an early reduction in interest rates. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that it would be unwise to make such a commitment until I am certain both that it would be right in terms of beating inflation and that once we bring interest rates down, we can safely keep them down.

Mr. Ian Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure that he will have strong support from Conservative Members in making sure that the campaign against inflation is maintained for as long as it need be. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that an


increase in mortgage rates is not the same as an increase in the rate of inflation? In that respect in particular, the retail prices index is a very unsatisfactory measure of inflationary conditions. When the RPI falls below the real rate of inflation, as it will over the next two years with falling interest rates, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to introduce a more realistic official inflation indicator and be prepared to adjust the annual uprating of benefits accordingly?

Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the retail prices index as presently constituted is an inaccurate measure of the underlying rate of inflation in the British economy. He will be aware that few countries in the world include mortgage repayments in their retail prices index, as we do. I take note of my right hon. Friend's other comments.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Government have said frequently that if their economic policy is not hurting, it is not working. Is not the real problem that the Government's policy is hurting manufacturing industry, investment and home owners? When will the Government open their eyes to the possibility of an alternative approach, such as credit control—which, although not perfect, can be of some help?

Mr. Major: The most damaging thing for industry and for the economy as a whole is inflation. Our monetary policy is there specifically to bear down on inflation. If we had not used monetary policy successfully in recent years, I doubt whether there would have been the dramatic reduction in unemployment which all right hon. and hon. Members welcome, and which today's announcement shows is continuing.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the battle against inflation must take priority, the burden of it is being borne excessively by small businesses and home owners? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes it is. While I accept that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget, will he, with his usual sensitivity, take that into consideration? After all, the need for the battle was not the fault of small businesses and home owners, but that of the Government.

Mr. Major: I understand the concern felt by my hon. Friend, who is a powerful and consistent proponent of lower interest rates. I entirely sympathise with the difficulties that many home owners in particular face at present. I have to bear in mind as an overriding objective the necessity to ensure that we have the right economic conditions for bringing down inflation and for ensuring that it is kept down. I must keep that in the forefront of my mind and policy, and I propose to do so.

Privatisation

Mrs. Wise: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates privatisation revenue will be in 1989–90.

Mr. Lilley: The latest estimate of net privatisation proceeds in 1989–90 is £.4¼ billion.

Mrs. Wise: Is not the Minister aware that, at the time of the previous Budget statement, the expected revenue was £5 billion? Can the shortfall be accounted for by the selling-off of water at far below its real value, and will that

shortfall be a factor that will prevent the Chancellor from raising tax thresholds in accordance with the Rooker-Wise amendments?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is not correct. Water was sold at a good price, and I was glad to see that 85 per cent. of employees in the water companies participated in the sale. On the hon. Lady's second point, a Labour Government who deprived themselves of a continuing flow of privatisation proceeds would have a black hole that they would be unable to fill without higher borrowing or higher taxation of the sort that she alludes to.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: While the £4,500 million received in the present financial year is a welcome by-product of the privatisation programme, will my hon. Friend confirm that the political purpose of the programme is to release businesses from political control into the healthy private sector, where every privatised industry has performed wonders for the economy of the United Kingdom and for its staff?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have privatised some 29 major companies, and virtually every company has increased its turnover, profits and investment and improved its industrial relations as a result. That is good for the company and good for the taxpayer because companies end up paying higher taxes—as British Telecom does—than they used to provide in dividends to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Mullin: What shall we live on when there is nothing left to privatise?

Mr. Lilley: Should a Labour Government be elected, the problem that the hon. Gentleman envisages would come sooner. What would a Labour Government do without the proceeds of privatisation from day one? I should be interested to hear the answer to that question.
It is clear that we have increased the flow of tax revenues to the Government from those companies, because they are now more profitable, which is an on-going benefit to the country, and we have reduced the debt of the nation, which is an on-going benefit to the Exchequer as well.

Social Charter

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest assessment of the effect on the United Kingdom's long-term economic performance of the proposed European social charter.

Mr. Ryder: It would raise costs, and cost jobs.

Mr. Fishburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best social charter that the country can have is plentiful and, ideally, full employment in the most modern and competitive industries?

Mr. Ryder: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows. Britain has created more jobs during the past six years than any other country in the European Community.

Mr. Chris Smith: Was not the Minister really saying in his first answer that Britain under the Tories can survive only by bad employment practices and cheap labour? Have not the other 11 countries of the European Community, with which, I remind the Minister, we have 70


per cent. of our trade deficit, realised that completely the opposite is the case, and that a good employment record is a recipe for economic success?

Mr. Ryder: If the social charter went through as it stands, the first people to suffer and to lose jobs would be women and the unskilled. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's slogan in Islington at the next election will be, "Back the social charter and create unemployment."

Mr. Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of events in eastern Europe and the potential reunification of Germany in particular, the social charter has now become an outdated irrelevance?

Mr. Ryder: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the former Secretary of State for Employment, said when he held that post that hundreds of thousands of British jobs would be at risk if the social charter went through. We need no lessons on unemployment problems in this country, because our unemployment is two thirds of the European average.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public spending planning total for 1990–91.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The public expenditure planning total for 1990–91 has been set at £179 billion.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that the Minister will confirm that we have an historically low level of public spending. How then can he justify the present position? Owing to our current balance of payments deficit, one item on which spending will be cut in real terms is export promotion services.

Mr. Lamont: In fact exports are doing extraordinarily well: the latest figures show that they are up 15 per cent. on the previous year. If exports are to increase, what matters most is the competitiveness of British industry, and we are determined to achieve that.

Mr. Yeo: Has there ever been a period in British history when, at the same time, public expenditure has risen substantially in real terms, the proportion of gross domestic product gobbled up by the state has fallen and a considerable amount of public debt has been repaid?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. There have been large real-terms increases in specific priority programmes within total general Government expenditure, which at the same time has fallen as a share of GDP. I believe that that is entirely related to the sharp increase in our growth rate—compared with that of our European competitors—during the same period.

Mortgage Arrears

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the number of home-owners with mortgage arrears.

Mr. Major: Around 70,000 mortgages are more than six months in arrears, less than half of 1 per cent. of total home-owners.

Mr. Barnes: I am sure that all hon. Members are meeting more and more constituents whose debts have reached crisis point. Many have become homeless, and the position has been worsened by the increase in mortgage rates. The plight of those people is desperate: they also face increases in transport and heating costs, and the poll tax, which is yet to be imposed in England and Wales. Are not we moving from crisis to catastrophe, and should not those who reside at No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street be evicted, rather than our constituents?

Mr. Major: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for those who are in difficulties. However, the level of arrears, although a little higher than it was a while ago, is still very low. A vast number of repossessions are predominantly the result of marriage break-up rather than high interest rates.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he just gave for mortgage arrears account for 0·73 of 1 per cent. of all mortgage holders, and that that proportion is lower than it was at the end of 1985? If that number is in arrears, by definition 99·27 per cent. of people are not.

Mr. Major: I confirm those figures. Of course arrears are difficult and painful for every individual home owner, but it is equally true that they are not running at the critical level implied by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) in his supplementary question.

Mr. Benn: Is the Chancellor aware that—quite apart from the tragedy of repossession—many people who had thought that they were home owners have discovered that they are home buyers? There is a big difference between the two. The Government have no interest in home buyers; they try to persuade home buyers that they are home owners, which they are now discovering that they are not.

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware that the number of properties repossessed in 1989—which, I think, underlies his concern—was less than one fifth of 1 per cent. of the number of building society loans. The problem has been there for a long time, and it certainly existed when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 2 million more families now own their homes than in 1979? Is not there a strong case for raising the mortgage tax relief threshold from £30,000 to at least £60,000—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has ark absolute right to say what he wants to say.

Mr. Dunn: —to take account of the huge increase in the value of homes, especially in the south-east, and in north-west Kent in particular?

Mr. Major: I note my hon. Friend's representations on that matter. He should bear it in mind that owner-occupation has risen from 55 to 65 per cent. in the past decade and that there is still a substantial demand for home ownership to continue, as I believe and expect it will.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor recollect that in the Conservative party's 1979 manifesto the then level of interest rates and mortgage repayments were said to result


from what was called "Government financial mismanagement"? After 11 years of Conservative Government, with people are suffering the highest mortgage repayments in our history, is that still true? Is it caused by Government financial mismanagement and, if not, what is the reason for all this misery?

Mr. Major: What was said in 1979 was entirely correct—[Interruption]—because for a long time when the Labour party was in Government there were negative interest rates which robbed savers, pushed up inflation and wrecked the economy.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building societies, which have been lending young people three and four times their income to buy overvalued properties, must take some of the blame? Does he also accept that what is worrying people in my constituency is not just the mortgage rate but a combination of the mortgage rate and the potentially astronomical community charge? Will he take cognisance of that and invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to cap Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Major: I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's latter remark to the Secretary of State. I agree that people should be prudent in the borrowing that they take on.

Workplace Nurseries

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received on tax relief for workplace nurseries.

Mr. Lilley: I regret that I cannot comment on tax matters in the run-up to my right hon. Friend's budget statement.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in congratulating those local authorities and private companies that have established workplace nurseries? Does he accept that the establishment of workplace nurseries has meant that parents, and especially women, have been able to participate to a much greater extent in those industries? Will he consult the Chancellor to see whether he can include in the Budget provisions that will exempt from taxation people who are deemed to be liable for taxation because of the subsidy that they receive for participation in those schemes?

Mr Lilley: On the first part of that supplementary question, I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the action of the bodies he mentioned. On the second, I am sure that the Chancellor has noted carefully what he said.

Mr. Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on supporting workplace nurseries in the public sector. I had the pleasure of opening one for a health authority last September. However, will he have a word with the Leader of the House about the need for workplace nurseries in the Palace of Westminster? I have a problem in that within a few days of each other, both my secretary in the House of Commons and my secretary in the constituency announced that they were pregnant.

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will pass on to the ladies concerned our congratulations, as I shall to the public sector bodies that are providing the facilities

that they may soon need. I shall also draw to the attention of the Leader of the House my hon. Friend's point and the impending increase in demand.

Private Medical Insurance

Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much private medical insurance tax relief will cost in a full year.

Mr. Lilley: About £40 million.

Mr. Turner: Is not the Government's conscience troubled when they give away that sort of money to people who are relatively well off and when district health authorities such as mine in Wolverhampton and elsewhere are closing beds and wards, when waiting lists are growing and when the fabric of the buildings is deteriorating? How can the Government justify giving away that sort of money when all those problems exist in our hospitals and in the National Health Service generally?

Mr. Lilley: If the relief on private medical insurance for the elderly is as successful as the Opposition appear to fear, it will pay for itself, because the National Health Service will be relieved of 100 per cent. of the cost of providing treatment for those subsequently cared for by the private sector, whereas the fiscal loss will be either 25 or 40 per cent. of the cost of premiums.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will not tax relief on private medical insurance for the elderly mean shorter NHS waiting lists to everybody's benefit as more pensioners opt for private treatment? Does my hon. Friend agree that it typical of the Opposition to begrudge a little tax relief to pensioners who mean to care for themselves if they possibly can?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point and puts the case cogently for that relief, which I believe will be widely welcomed by pensioners.

Mortgage Interest

Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of mortgage interest paid by owner occupiers for 1988; and what is the comparative amount for the first three quarters of 1989.

Mr. Ryder: The figures are £22·1 billion and £23·5 billion.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree that those are appalling and indefensible figures? Many of us believe that they are a direct result of the inept, suicidal and disastrous Government economic policies. Will he give some words of relief and wisdom to mortgage payers who are faced with the financial trauma of consistently increasing rates? Does he agree with the present Secretary of State for Employment, the former Minister responsible for housing, who recently made the corny and insulting comment that if one is feeling the pinch because of mortgage interest rates payments one should take in lodgers?

Mr. Ryder: I appreciate that high mortgage rates cause distress to all mortgage payers, and particularly to young married couples. But we have to continue to bear down on inflation. Once inflation is on a sustained downward path, interest rates and mortgage interest rates will follow.

Mr. Raison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the direct effect of putting up mortgage interest tax relief allowance from £30,000 would be to add to the cost of housing? Would not that be a bad thing?

Mr. Ryder: I have heard the representations made by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) earlier today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take those views into account when formulating his Budget by 20 March.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry over the state of the economy.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The CBI submitted a paper for the National Economic Development Council's discussion on the outlook for the economy on 10 January.

Mr. Winnick: Is it true that privately the CBI is told that it is all the fault of the previous Chancellor? How much longer can the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) be held responsible for the economic mess when the responsibility clearly falls upon the entire Government, not least the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lamont: The CBI fully supports the Government's policy. The CBI strongly believes that the most important thing is to reduce inflation, and therefore it supports the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman talks as though the CBI was somehow the friend of the Labour party. He may have noticed that the other day the Director-General of the CBI said that the last decade had been the best 10 years he had ever known for business in this country.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend ask the CBI what the state of the economy would be if the Labour promises were put into effect?

Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not need to ask the CBI because we all know what the effect would be. The only trouble is that during the debate on the public expenditure White Paper the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) still refused to answer questions on the cost of Labour's programme and on how much would it put up taxes.

Third World Debt

Mr. Watson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current policy of the Inland Revenue in relation to the tax treatment of United Kingdom banks which make provision against Third world debt.

Mr. Ryder: The Inland Revenue operates the test laid down by law. This provides tax relief to the extent that the principal is estimated to be irrecoverable.

Mr. Watson: Would it not be appropriate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce incentives for the banks to cancel outstanding debts to the Third world and thereby assist in the development of those countries to bridge the gap between the developed and the underdeveloped world?

Mr. Ryder: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Budget representations, but judging from his remarks, I think that he does not quite understand the purpose of the matrix.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new bank matrix provides guidelines only? Can he reassure banks that the matrix will not be used as a revenue-raising mechanism? Can he confirm that banks will be able to write off Third world debt strictly on a business basis?

Mr. Ryder: This is a matter for the Inland Revenue, but I should point out to my hon. Friend that the increase in the matrix reflects the concern of the Bank of England over the past few years about the debt problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mans: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the plight of community charge payers in Lancashire, where the Socialist-controlled county council's provisional budget represents the equivalent of a 30 per cent. increase in the rates? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this contrasts sharply with the position in the Conservative-controlled borough of Westminster, whose council has recently announced a community charge below £200 and below the Government's estimate? Will she therefore, with the Secretary of State for the Environment, consider community charge capping Lancashire, which is both high spending and incompetent?

The Prime Minister: There is no justification for the kind of increases that my hon. Friend has just mentioned in the case of Lancashire. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it perfectly clear that if authorities continue to budget excessively he will not hesitate to cap them. They should have more consideration for their residents. I am very glad that the Conservative Westminster council has given such an excellent lead with a community charge below £200. Other councils will follow.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of capping, can the Prime Minister tell the House what thought she has given to imposing a cap on mortgage rates?

The Prime Minister: About 3 million more people are now able to take out mortgages than in 1979, and there has been a much greater increase in the number of people who own their own homes compared with the position some 10 years ago. That is a very good record.

Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister stop dodging the question and simply own up to the fact that the all-time record mortgage rates are due entirely to her economic policies?

The Prime Minister: Also due to our economic policy, as the right hon. Gentleman may know if he looks at "Social Trends", published today, is the fact that real


household disposable income increased by 25 per cent. between 1981 and 1988, and that there are now 15 million owner-occupied homes, compared with 11·6 million under Labour. That is due to the excellence of Conservative economic policies.

Mr. Kinnock: Through the use of the word "also", I accept the Prime Minister's confession.

The Prime Minister: Our Chancellors have handled our economic policy excellently, and I note that well over 99 per cent. of an increased number of mortgage holders manage to pay their mortgages very well, and will find home ownership a great benefit—it is a very good investment.

Mr. Gorst: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gorst: In the light of the question put to her by the Leader of the Opposition, is it due to the economic policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, for the second successive year, the level of manufacturing in this country has gone up? Is that also why our unemployment is almost the lowest in western Europe? Will that eventually make some contribution to reducing interest rates?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend observed, the figures for manufacturing investment last year have just been published. Manufacturing investment in 1988 was an all-time record and last year's figures raised that record to a new high level. That is two years of excellent manufacturing investment.
With regard to the employment figures published today, we have a record number of jobs in this country. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen, which is very good news.
With regard to inflation, as my hon. Friend knows, we always take whatever measures are necessary to keep bearing down on inflation.

Mr. Strang: Will the Prime Minister take time this afternoon to consider the plight of the hundreds of thousands of council tenants whom the Government encouraged to buy their council houses? Is it not time that the Government reconsidered their policy of cutting support for council housing and bringing pressure on council tenants to buy their council houses by forcing up council rents?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we put through a policy of tenants purchasing their council houses, which was bitterly opposed by the Labour party but from which many people have profited, and they are grateful for that. We shall continue to pursue that policy. In Scotland, as he knows, it has been extended in Scottish Homes. That has been a good bargain for all who have partaken of the opportunity that they have had from the Government.

Mr. Michael Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: In a week when Inter-Parliamentary Union delegations have returned from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of assessing the current state of our political, economic and social links with the countries of central and eastern Europe? In particular, will she speculate on how those developments will be regarded in the light of the latest discussions on German reunification?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have been active in contacts with and grants to eastern Europe. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office have visited a number of east European countries. We recently had the Polish Prime Minister here, and previously the Hungarian Prime Minister. We hope to have President Havel of Czechoslovakia here soon. We have contributed to the Polish and Hungarian stabilisation funds through the know-how fund and substantially, through the European Community, with extra food and medical equipment for Poland. All that is going very well indeed.
My hon. Friend is aware that we are pledged to support German reunification by longstanding agreements. Our concern has been to have a proper framework in which we can ensure security and stability in Europe, and we succeeded in getting that at the Ottawa conference which has just ended. We have a framework of the four Berlin powers, plus the two Germanys—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: When I am asked questions, I expect to answer them. We shall also—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.

The Prime Minister: We shall also need an appropriate framework in which to discuss the implications for the European Economic Community, particularly in regard to agriculture, trade and financial arrangements.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that the BBC plans a "Panorama" programme with the avowed object of denigrating the Ulster Defence Regiment? Will the Prime Minister undertake to ensure that the Government refute this slander by publishing the true facts about that regiment?

The Prime Minister: I had heard that a programme on the UDR was being prepared. I most earnestly hope that it will not denigrate the UDR. It is a very fine body of men and women whose lives are at risk whether they are on or off duty. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's fears will not come to pass, but I suggest that he contact the chairman and the director-general of the BBC if he is in any doubt.

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for various reasons, including the spreading and contracting


of AIDS, any proposal to reduce the age of consent to homosexual activities is wholly unacceptable and utterly crackers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that any such proposal would give totally the wrong signal at this time. It would give offence to many people and worry many more and would give us great problems in the future. I would be very much against reducing the age of consent.

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware that 10,000 farmers and farm workers leave the land every year. Will she tell the consumers of this country who will produce their food requirements by the turn of the century and what she intends to do about this very serious problem?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are not short of food in the European Community and we are not short of food from America and a number of other places. Indeed, one of our problems has been the surplus of food; hence the need for quotas for milk, and so on. If there is a prospect of East Germany coming into the Community or being reunited with West Germany, that also will he a great producing area which will add to, not diminish, supplies. Also, many of the eastern European countries are only too anxious to send their supplies to us, which could pose problems. I do not think that the problem that the hon. Gentleman outlines will arise by the turn of the century.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree with Norman Shrapnel that too much silence is much more ominous than too much noise in a parliamentary democracy? Why, then, does she fear an inquiry into the Colin Wallace affair?

The Prime Minister: I have already replied on that matter, as have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I have nothing further to add to what we have said.

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fishburn: Uncertainty has hung over the future of the English National Opera and the English National Ballet, of which I am a governor. Will my right hon. Friend send her best wishes to both those national companies for continued artistic excellence, supported by generous Government grants, good management and a high level of private sponsorship?

The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend in sending best wishes to those two most excellent organisations, the English National Opera and the English National Ballet. I am delighted that they are out of financial difficulty. In the arts in Britain we have excellent private sponsorship, owing to the prosperity arid generosity of industry, and a high level of Government support. In the coming years we shall put it up by some 22 per cent. to ensure that that high level is maintained and that London remains the most distinguished centre in the world.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Williams: Now that the Government have agreed to pay 100 per cent. compensation for the victims of mad cow disease, will the Prime Minister agree to introduce a similar scheme of compensation for the millions of victims of her poll tax?

The Prime Minister: If I may answer the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced 100 per cent. compensation for mad cow disease. We are expecting an increasing amount of the disease because of the long incubation period. My right hon. Friend thought, under those circumstances, that it was better to go from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. compensation.
The community charge is the best and fairest way of paying for local authorities spending. It is far better than the Opposition's alternative of a roof tax, which is quite ridiculous.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th allotted day, 1st part). Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party entitled "The dispute in the ambulance service".
Motion on the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (9th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate described as "How Privatisation Has Pushed Up Electricity Prices And Set Back Environmental Improvements". I am considering the propriety of having such narrative descriptions of debates. I shall seek to do something about it.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on the more compactly described subject, "The Royal Shakespeare Company", both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Clergy (Ordination) Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "What time?"] After 10 o'clock, presumably.
WEDNESDAY 2I FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, debate on Procedure motions. Details will be given in the Offical Report.
Remaining stages of the Government Trading Bill.
Money and Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on East-West relations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
[Wednesday 21 February, Procedure motions: Public Petitions, New Writs, Private Members' Motions.]

Dr. Cunningham: May I, on behalf of the whole House, thank the Leader of the House for his prompt response to the requests last week for a debate on the changes taking place in Europe? I am sure that that debate will be widely welcomed, and I thank the Leader of the House for his prompt action in that regard.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that, when we debate the procedure motions next week, the Government will not begin by taking up the time, as they did on a previous occasion, thus preventing proper time for a full discussion of the issues? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that we shall reach a conclusion on these matters when they come before the House next week? If he can be positive in his response, that would also be welcomed.
Does the Leader of the House recall his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying on Tuesday during the debate on the Government's public expenditure plans that Government economic policy was creating a "virtuous circle"? Does he think that people today, receiving the news of their increased mortgage payments, will regard that as an accurate statement about the impact of Government economic policy?
As we understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the chairman of the Conservative party—in the face of this news and today's opinion polls, has had to be locked up in a darkened room at Tory central office, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to come to the House next week to make a statement on the mortgage rates and their implications for millions of families? I am sure that Conservative Members, too, would like an explanation for their constituents, so will he tell us how high mortgage rates will be allowed to go under the Government? Is it not clear that the damage that is being done to people by the worst record of a Government on mortgage rates this century ought to be brought to an end?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will begin by dealing with the point on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated last. As to parliamentary discussion of the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary and other Treasury Ministers have been answering questions about that this very afternoon, following the full debate last Tuesday. If the Opposition wish to debate it in their own time, there will be other opportunities, apart from the opportunity presented by the Budget statement. On the substance of the matter, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that if inflation is to be brought effectively under control, high interest rates are a necessary part of that policy and need to be sustained until success is secured.

Mr. Tony Banks: When is it going to happen, Geoff?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question will recur no doubt on subsequent occasions.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his appreciation of the early debate on East-West relations.
I acknowledge the question that the hon. Gentleman put about the procedure motions. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be no other business taking up part of the time. Obviously I shall do my best to avoid it, but it is my intention to bring the matter to a conclusion in next week's debate.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Can my right hon. and learned Friend find an opportunity during the coming week to tell the House what steps will be taken to improve the performance of microphones in the Chamber so that disorderly remarks can be heard as well by you, Sir, as by anybody else?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Many aspects of the quality of the acoustic equipment of the Chamber are under almost continuous consideration by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House under my chairmanship. The task is to provide a system of amplification that will ensure as effective hearing as possible of the hon. Member currently addressing the House without that system overamplifying such back-ground noise as may from time to time be heard. The


impact of any intervention depends on where that hon. Member happens to be in relation to the microphone currently under the command of the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House consider once again the national shortage of teachers, the low morale of the profession and the increasing workload arising from the national curriculum? If we cannot have an early debate under that head, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House on the restoration of the negotiating rights of teachers and to improve the financial offer this year for teachers to restore confidence in the profession and to attract qualified people into it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government have recently announced their reaction to the report of the interim advisory committee, which provides for full implementation of that report in the course of the year. Following that announcement, there will have to be further consultation on the revised draft of the relevant document. Because the Government propose to stage the award, the order giving effect to the new document will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. That will provide an opportunity for debate.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend request our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House next week to substantiate or deny the rumour that over 100 local authorities are to be capped for the purposes of the community charge? Will he accept that that will give much relief to many colleagues whose constituents labour under the rule of Socialist-controlled county councils? It will enable the councils to cut their cloth accordingly and will relieve the householders of the fear that they will have to pay very high community charges.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that, notwithstanding the press reports that have been published on the matter, decisions about capping cannot be made until authorities have set their budgets. The statutory deadline for that is 1 March for precepting authorities and 11 March for charging authorities. However, the Government have made it clear and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear earlier this afternoon that if authorities budget prudently and sensibly, they will have nothing to fear from capping. But if they insist on budgeting excessively, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not hesitate to cap them and require them to reduce their excessive budgets.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Police Complaints Authority report on the disturbances at Wapping is published today. In view of the serious matters that are described in that report, will the Leader of the House arrange for either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General to make an early statement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to do that, but I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's understandable interest in the report to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will answer questions in the House on the matter on Monday.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to read the recent debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill or the proceedings of the Committee on that Bill? Has he noted the extraordinary statement by the Chairman of that Committee that its entire business has been dominated by the inability to provide a shorthand writer service at a tame that would suit the Committee? Does not that underline the inappropriateness of that procedure for handling matters of that scale? Could we please have an early debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that I have not yet had the opportunity to study the passages to which my hon. Friend referred. I acknowledge that the burden of work placed on the House by the present volume of private business is a factor which we need to take into account in the course of the consideration that I am undertaking with colleagues about the right way to react to those problems.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the great gas robbery? By that I mean the proposal to take Scottish gas from the central North sea and pipe it to Tayside for processing and development, including the generation of 3,000 MW of cheap electricity which will undermine the competitive position of Scottish industry. We should like to know why the hydro-electric board, which is still a public corporation in Scotland, with a social responsibility, is engaged in a plan with British Steel which will destroy the Scottish steel industry. Why does the Secretary of State, not content with selling off and selling out Scottish industry, now intend to give it away?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member has tried to deal with such a wide range of topics that it is impossible for me to answer all or any of them. I shall bring his fears to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to select one or other of the matters that he has raised as a topic for discussion in his party's time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend add anything to what he said last week about the prospect of an early debate to allow the Government to make a statement on Kashmir? Does he agree that it is a matter for the international community? Martial law has been imposed in Kashmir and there is a ban on the press. This week we have seen photographs of some ugly demonstrations in New Delhi. Is it not time that we had a Government statement on that important matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot, I am afraid, add to what I told the House last week on that topic. I shall draw the matter once again to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-upon-Trent, South): Did the Leader of the House ever hear anything so silly as the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment last week that the solution to the problem of Rottweiler dogs was to put name tags on them? Would anyone in his right mind suggest that name tags should be put on other dangerous animals such as lions and tigers


and that they should be allowed to roam loose? As Rottweilers are dangerous animals, can we debate next week the need to ban them completely?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the increasing concern about the behaviour of certain dogs, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which was passed only last summer, was intended to bring some remedy to bear on that matter. However, I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the answer he gave a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, West (Mr. Hind)? Is there not already sufficient evidence that Labour and Conservative councils alike are hiding a massive increase in spending behind the community charge? Is it not right that hon. Members should have a chance to demonstrate their disapproval by having an early debate rather than waiting until it is too late?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the report or the matter raised by my hon. Friend, for the reasons that I have already explained to the House. The statutory deadlines for budget making are both in March—on 1 March and 11 March. Decisions on capping cannot be made until that time. However, I repeat that, as both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already said, as that date approaches authorities should take into account the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not hesitate to cap authorities to require them to reduce excessive budgets.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that Labour and Conservative Members from south-west Scotland have been campaigning for the retention of the Stranraer—London sleeper—

Mr. Tony Banks: There are two on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Foulkes: Not that kind of sleeper.
Is the Leader of the House further aware that in yesterday's debate on transport, the Secretary of State for Transport clearly knew absolutely nothing about the facts of that service? Indeed, he was dismissive of the questions raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and myself. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee to debate Scottish transport, and especially the rail service and its deterioration in Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: What I can do, although it scarcely seems necessary, is to ensure that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) are considered not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished former Member for a

Merseyside constituency and will therefore be well aware of the horror that is shared by all sections of society and all parties at the Department of Transport's refusal to try to deal with the capital debt of the Mersey tunnels while dealing, apparently, with the debt of that grotesque political structure, the Humber bridge. That is not right. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will find the time for a debate on this urgent issue, which has economic, social and political implications.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the topic raised by my hon. Friend, except to confirm from my own recollection that there is more enthusiasm on Merseyside for the Mersey tunnels than for the Humber bridge. I shall bring that fact and the point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the crisis facing many district health authorities as they face yet more cuts in their budgets? My district health authority, for example, is faced with the loss of another 80 beds and the closure of the occupational therapy department and the children's ward.
Referring to the treatment of children, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at early-day motion 539?
[That this House believes the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has crucial implications for the future of in vitro fertilisation techniques, diagnosis and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatments for infertility, miscarriage and contraception; further believes that this important Bill deserves serious and detailed consideration on its own merits; therefore declares its intention to resist efforts of anti-abortion hon. Members to introduce the separate and controversial issue of abortion into this Bill, in particular by the moving of amendments to lower the abortion time limit below 20 weeks as the medical and ethical arguments about late term abortions are quite different from those surrounding the treatment of embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation, and believes that this essential debate on embryo research must not be allowed to be distorted and overshadowed by the inevitably heightened emotion which would follow from the introduction of abortion amendments.]
There is a printing error, because the motion should read "below 28 weeks" and not "below 20 weeks", which has been printed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the hon. Lady's point about early-day motion 539, which will no doubt be corrected if necessary. In answer to her first point, the fact is that, under this Government, there has been a massive increase—a threefold increase in money terms and a 40 per cent. increase in real terms—in the resources devoted to the National Health Service. The reforms under consideration in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is now in Committee are designed to promote even more efficient use of those resources to tackle the distributional problems that she has in mind.

Mr. James Pawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the work of the parliamentary commissioner and the Select Committee


covering the commissioner. The matter has been raised with him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). However, his knowledge is not always shared by all hon. Members. Therefore, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on the parliamentary commissioner reports?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, I have discussed this matter with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner and was pressed on the matter by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). The response that I gave then, and subsequently, is that, if a report focuses sufficiently closely on an issue, it can be debated in the House. So far, no need has been felt for a regular report on the work of that Select Committee.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the serious position facing the work force of the clothing manufacturing company, James Seddon (UK) Ltd., which earlier this week went into receivership, thereby jeopardising about 2,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom, including about 250 in Denny and 400 in Falkirk? The two factories are both in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Scotland about taking urgent Government action to save those jobs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member is certainly entitled to raise that matter. However, I cannot do more at this stage than promise to bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. John Greenway: When might we have an opportunity to debate the criminal justice system, and law and order? As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, an important Government White Paper on this matter was published last week. There is considerable interest in the report of the Home Affairs Committee into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and about matters affecting our current inquiry into the Crown prosecution service and both matters should be discussed by the House. Contrary to some of the rumours circulating in the press about the state of the Crown prosecution service, those Committee members who visited Manchester and north Wales this week found the morale of its staff extremely buoyant and discovered that the service was working well.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House that information. There was a debate on a private Member's motion on legal services on Monday of this week, when matters affecting the Crown prosecution service were discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As I have told the House, I also hope for a suitable opportunity for a debate on criminal justice.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose—

Mr. Bob Cryer: We have been getting up and down.

Mr. Speaker: They are both young.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am the good-looking one, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Leader of the House accept that there are a number of Scottish matters, such as the future of the steel industry, the fishing industry and sleepers to England, that are of concern north of the border? Is he aware that those subjects would be best scrutinised by the Select Committee procedure? Does he accept that the absence of a departmental Select Committee on Scottish Affairs prejudices the scrutiny of the conduct of matters in the Scottish Office? Will he arrange a statement next week to announce an early constitution of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already told the House, I cannot add anything to what I went out of my way to say in the debate on the Loyal Address. The matter was also the subject of discussion in the previous debate on 20 December 1989.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an urgent statement on the consequences of the recent storms? The floods and gales that have swept southern England over the past couple of months have brought consequences which are far more severe for most people than those resulting from the great gales of 1987. There are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House whose constituents, like mine, are still wading up to their waists in water, are without electricity, sewerage and other services. Even this afternoon the portals of the home of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) are being lapped by water, and after 40 years in this place not even he is able to turn the tide.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises a point of real concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I saw some of the damage when I visited the west country at the end of last week. I shall bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Did the Leader of the House read the recent article in The Observer, which suggested that thousands of waste disposal tips in Britain, including many in my constituency, could be a threat to the health of people living in their vicinity? Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate in order to ascertain the truth of the report, in order to put our constituents' minds at rest?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did indeed see the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, although it is probably already in his mind.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said earlier about a community charge capping debate. I realise that he cannot single out particular authorities at this stage, but this is a burning topical issue. With three weeks still to go, my constituents hope that some councils may yet cut waste, mend their ways and revise their estimates. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will concede the request for such a debate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's question reinforces the point made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Her Majesty's Government hope that all councils that have not yet completed their deliberations on these matters will take into account what the Prime Minister and I have said.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Leader of the House urgently consider a serious problem? Is he aware that some of the newly privatised water companies believe that they have no obligation to provide water supplies for fire-fighting services? Will the Leader of the House accept that that could be serious, and will he introduce, if necessary, amending legislation, since it is obvious that the Water Act 1989 must be defective in that respect? Will he also accept that this is a fine demonstration of the dominance that the commercial motive now has in British society?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not aware of the validity of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I emphasise the central point that the whole purpose and structure of the legislation providing for the privatisation of the water industry was to enhance the supervisory effectiveness of authorities acting in the public interest. That was the object of the exercise.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some private Bills are relatively uncontroversial but are of great importance to the localities they affect, and that a considerable backlog of those Bills is now building up? Can he say how quickly that backlog will be tackled and what procedures are to be introduced for streamlining the passage of such Bills through the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two aspects to that question. One is the management of Bills currently before the House; in relation to that, my hon. Friend will have noticed that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been nominating time for the consideration of such measures quite frequently, and is continuing to do so. On the wider longer-term question, as I have already said, I am considering with colleagues how we can best reform private Bill procedures in the light of the report from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, and I hope to be able to give the House some news about that before too long.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Leader of the House will be aware that Mr. Stevens's inquiry into alleged collusion between police, Army and loyalist paramilitary groupings in the North of Ireland is very much a litmus test of the Government's commitment to a security service there that will act at all times within the law. Will the Leader of the House try to arrange a debate on that issue in the near future so that the relevant Minister can assure the House that this time there will be no conspiracies of silence, that there will be full co-operation, that no road blocks will be put in Mr. Stevens's way, and so that the House can express its wish that, for the first time in 20 years, an inquiry in the North of Ireland will establish the truth rather than evade it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously I cannot accept the implications or framework of the hon. Gentleman's observations, but I shall certainly bring his remarks to the

attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, emphasising the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the Labour party's proposals for a roof tax, so that we can bring to the attention of the British public the problems that they will face not only with a tax based on the value of a person's house but with local income tax? Such a debate could draw attention also to what would happen if there was ever a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer at Westminster ripping off taxpayers, and another 400 "chancellors of the exchequer" in town halls ripping them off a second time.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point, and although he made it effectively enough, I shall see whether I can find an opportunity for him to amplify it.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in June, the International Whaling Commission will be reconsidering the ban on commercial whaling? Great pressure is building up from Japan, Norway and Iceland to lessen the moratorium on commercial whaling. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman carefully consider arranging an early debate, in which the views of the Government and of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House on the future of the commercial whaling ban could be expressed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take that matter very seriously and have adopted a robust attitude throughout. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, ultimately, politics is about making choices and not simply registering a protest? Given that a large number of councils have announced community charge increases well above the rate of inflation, will he arrange for an early debate on local government finance? The House would then be able to compare what electors are being asked to pay in community charge this year with the amount that would have been demanded if certain councils had kept their spending down to the rate of inflation—and with what they would have to pay under the Opposition's iniquitous roof tax and local income tax proposals.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter, which should now be under consideration in town and county halls throughout the country and by prospective electors in local elections. There is a choice to be made between higher and lower expenditure levels, just as there is a choice to be made between high-spending Labour authorities and prudent Conservative authorities.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange as a matter of urgency for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on a report produced by the Ministry of Defence police about the dangers of withdrawing MOD police from Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory? The report concludes that such action would be dangerous and foolhardy, and could possibly prompt terrorist and criminal attacks on that factory. Will the right hon. and


learned Gentleman arrange such a debate to alleviate the fears of my constituents, who are terribly worried that the MOD police might be withdrawn?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already undertaken to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I do so again.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Apparently, recently a report was issued about women going back to work. We are always having reports about women this, women that, and women the other. I do not know whether they do any good. If they do, I wonder whether we could have a debate on the problems faced by men—who do not live so long, get their pensions later, have specific medical problems, and are sometimes driven to drink by women. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would care to enhance his reputation still further by doing for men that which his wife has done for women—or would he not dare?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always grateful for tributes to my wife or to myself from my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will note that the Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I know he is a fervent admirer, has produced a report making the very proposals that he has made for improving the lot of our sex.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorely tempted to reply to that last question, but I will not.
I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 538.
[That this House is alarmed at the proposals of HTV Production Services to make 112 redundancies as a result of the group's decision to apply for a publishing/contractor franchise in the next round of ITV franchise changes arising out of the Broadcasting Bill; notes that this decision puts all jobs in production in the industry at threat, damages the links between HTV and the local community in Bristol, damages the existence of local programme making and effectively establishes the profitable right to broadcast adverts; and therefore calls on the Government to take note of HTV's proposals and ensure that the new franchise is allocated on the basis of quality production of programmes]
I understand that consideration of the Bill has gone beyond that section where an amendment could have been moved, and I ask the Leader of the House to speak to his colleagues and to ensure that the necessary amendment is tabled in Committee or on Report so that no franchise is given under the new broadcasting arrangements on the basis of publishing alone, so as to protect the quality of programmes produced by companies.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I obviously cannot answer the hon. Lady in detail. HTV is an existing franchise holder. If it wishes to continue to contract under the new Broadcasting Bill, it will have to fulfil the programming requirements set out in the Bill. The staffing needed to achieve that level of service is a matter for the management, and the hon. Lady will have to find opportunities to raise her question when the matter comes to the floor of the House, as no doubt it will.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Could the House have an early opportunity to debate local authority housing in London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that five Labour-controlled London authorities have collectively failed to collect £58 million of rent? That must have

serious implications for housing the homeless, and for the community charge for people who live in those local authorities.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view about the grave impact of the matter to which he has drawn the House's attention. The House will be grateful to him for having done that. I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on that subject.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Leader of the House seen the message of my late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker, to his constituents, in which he apologised for having asked them to have hope that this House would grant them equal citizenship. Could the Leader of the House find time next week to manifest the will of the Ulster people and the House, that the people of Northern Ireland be treated as equal citizens with their fellows in the kingdom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our distress at the recent death of his hon. Friend. I have not studied the particular text to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said many times, he is always willing to discuss any proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. John Bowis: Following the Adjournment debate last night on the subject of the campaign by Parents against Tobacco, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an opportunity for more of these supporters of that cause in the House to have their say, and to raise the question of the non-enforcement of the law which prohibits the sale of tobacco to young people? There is also the issue of inadequate fines—25p for smoking on London Underground. Will he drop a hint or two to the Chancellor about pricing policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not yet had the opportunity to study the text of last night's debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and our other colleagues in the Administration will be studying it carefully.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on this somewhat remarkable report, which seems to have been well hidden away—the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? The report was published last July, and shows that the Refreshment Department has nearly £2 million in reserve, and that, in the year 1988–89, it made nearly £500,000 profit. At the same time, people are working in the Refreshment Department for little more than £100 per week. I raised this matter with the Leader of the House last week. What is going to be done to raise the wages of people working in the Refreshment Department? We do not want cheap labour, so can they be paid properly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member will understand that the terms and conditions of employment of people in the Refreshment Department are set in accordance with the ordinary prevailing rates. The level of money accumulated in that account is a consequence of the changes in arrangements for managing the Department. He will remember that some years ago there was a problem of chronic loss because of the proportion of expenditure borne by the Department and more widely by the


Exchequer. The matter will be considered in due course by the House of Commons Commission and the relevant Sub Committee.

Sir Alan Glyn: May I take up an earlier question? My constituency was probably the worst affected by the recent flooding. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to speed up an inquiry into whether the Bellwin scheme is applicable, or whether new legislation will have to be introduced to help those whose houses and property have been badly damaged through no fault of their own?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Bellwin scheme was activated in the first instance on 26 January this year. It was subsequently extended on the sixth of this month. Details of the arrangements were sent to all the local authorities affected by the scheme, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case there is anything further to be said.

Mr. James Lamond: When those of us who are inerested in textiles attended a debate on 12 January—which was a Friday, by the way—to discuss the multi-fibre arrangement, all who spoke, regardless of party, emphasised the need to continue protecting the textile industry. What was the point? The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box yesterday and made off-the-cuff remarks which appeared to dismiss any possibility of the MFA's continuing. Surely, if he wants to make such statements, he should come to the House—preferably next week—and allow us to point out the difficulties that will arise for hundreds of thousands of textile and clothing workers throughout the country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer for any construction that the hon. Gentleman may or may not have placed on what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, but he will know from the fact that we arranged for that debate to take place that we are paying some attention to the matter.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to hold an early debate on eastern Europe. In view of the problems faced by the hosiery, knitwear and textiles industry—not least the difficulties about renewing the MFA, which I fervently hope will happen—will he consider arranging a debate specifically about trade with eastern Europe? Sooner or later we shall have to consider how to help those countries, if we are going to help them. We certainly do not want cheap hosiery, knitwear and textiles to flood into Britain, as that would cause further damage to an industry which is already suffering considerably.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of the position. Plainly, if the countries of eastern and central Europe are able to begin to improve their economic performance after years of being held back by Communist domination, problems will be posed for the rest of the world trading economy, including this country's economy. I believe, however, that those issues will fall within the scope of next Thursday's debate.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, if the Social Security Bill completes its passage, it will not immediately apply to Northern Ireland. As it contains provisions for additional finance for carers, the extension of mobility allowance to the deaf and the blind and the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill, will he assure the House that immediately after its passage the Northern Ireland order on social security will be presented and debated so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from those provisions straight away?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Toby Jessel: May I support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) for a debate on the losses on the Humber bridge, which have so far amounted to £342 million? As the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election of January 1966, when Mrs. Barbara Castle—then Transport Minister—promised a Humber bridge, I find it hard to believe that it was worth £342 million of public money to keep me out of this place, and that for only four years.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the House would have done best to have both the presence of my hon. Friend and the retention of the money.

Mr. Greville Janner: Following the tragedy at Donnington Park race course and at Hillsborough, and last week's semi-disaster at the Astoria concert hall, may we please have a debate on crowd safety before there are any more tragedies, so that we can discuss why the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are not in charge and able to impose some discipline on gatherings of young people, which are inviting tragedy again?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on such a wide-ranging topic as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could, of course, always seek an opportunity by way of a debate on the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 349—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that a copy of it would be handed to him if we were to wait—about Curry's and Dixon's repair policy?
[That this House deplores the policy of Dixons and Curry's of charging £10 call-out fees to repair goods still under guarantee; congratulates the Consumers Association and others who have condemned this policy; and calls upon the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the National Consumer Council's Consumer Guarantee.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman join the Consumers' Association in condemning that practice? Will he ask the Minister for consumer affairs to make a statement in the House and to support the Consumer Guarantees Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that matter. Nor am I sufficiently well informed to comment on it—nor would it be wise to do so—but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for consumer affairs.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his role as deputy Prime Minister, arrange for Government time to be provided for the Bill sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to repeal the law of blasphemy? Does he recognise that such a debate would enable the Government to invite the Law Commission to recommend whether any new public order laws should be introduced to replace the law of blasphemy? It would also enable the Government to call on Salman Rushdie to stop the paperback version of "The Satanic Verses" being published, which would bring an end to all protests against the book and isolate the tiny minority of men of violence who support violence and odious death threats against Mr. Rushdie.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I obviously support the general denunciation by the hon. Gentleman of threats of death in those or any other circumstances. I cannot venture to comment on the other complicated but important matters he raised, which I shall bring to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that yesterday, in the Oslo commission, Britain was isolated 13–1 on the issue of North sea dumping? He will be aware that Denmark is considering taking Britain to the International Court of Justice for failing to stop dumping, as agreed, in the North sea.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that we need an urgent debate in the House to stop Britain dumping in the North sea and, indeed, to initiate action to clear up the effects of dumping, about which fishermen have protested this week, having found their nets full of condoms, sanitary towels, syringes and all kinds of rubbish that is dumped into the North sea by the countries surrounding it? We need an urgent debate to discuss how Britain can clean up its act and work with others to clean up the North sea.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was a prolonged intervention by the hon. Gentleman, in which he failed to remind the House that the Oslo commission countries welcomed the restatement of the United Kingdom's commitment to ending the sea disposal of industrial wastes. Our attitude was there fully explained and showed the Government's recognition of the importance of the subject. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's particular concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Howarth: When the Leader of the House is discussing with the Secretary of State for Transport the recent decision over the Mersey tunnels' finances, will he draw to his attention the fact that the people of Merseyside are outraged at the prospect of having to pay £8 a head additional poll tax to bear those costs? Will he also point out that they are equally outraged over the fact that refinancing arrangements have been agreed for the Humber bridge but not for Merseyside?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously I cannot comment on detailed questions, but I shall bring the particular point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John McAllion: Following the Government's refusal to refer the GEC takeover of Ferranti to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and

bearing in mind the implications of that decision for some Ferranti workers who may now have to face the dole, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House so that those of us with Ferranti factories in or near our constituencies will have a chance to question him on that decision?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to make a statement about that matter now, although I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to his attention.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about a debate or a statement on the high interest rates and the way in which they are affecting mortgages? Will he also bear in mind the fact that such a debate will enable us to ask the Chancellor whether he will allow banks additional tax relief to cover Third-world debts, which will mean that 8 million mortgage payers will have to pay more while the four top clearing banks will be making money hand over fist? Money for the Third world should not go to the top four banks in Britain; it should be used for relief for Third-world countries.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has linked a number of matters together in a very artificial fashion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of all the relevant matters when formulating his economic policy.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the secret decision taken by the Government to station the new American nuclear bomber, the F15E, in Bentwaters in Suffolk? Will he ensure that the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, attends that debate, because on 6 February he misled the House when he gave an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) that no decision had been taken, but gave me a reply stating that construction would be taking place at Bentwaters, meaning that the F15E will go there? Not only did the Minister mislead the House, but he broke American security, because that is classified information according to the American security budget. Will the Leader of the House consider prosecuting the Minister under the Official Secrets Act 1989?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is no part of my function to comment on a contribution that borders on a speech rather than a request or question relating to the business of the House next week. No doubt in due course there will be an opportunity to debate such matters when the House debates the Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will then expound the Government's policy clearly and convincingly.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House on yesterday's anouncement that the Barry island resort will not be opening this season because of extensive storm damage? That will result in the loss of 120,000 visitors to the town of Barry and will be a devastating blow to the local


economy. Will he impress upon his right hon. Friend the need for urgent Government action, because that disaster falls outwith the Bellwin arrangements?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously the House is concerned about any particular example of severe damage as a result of recent storms. However, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about it on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House is aware that more than 100,000 people in Britain suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis. He will also be aware that a private Bill on that illness was brought to the House some 18 months ago. As enormous amounts of money are being found for research and compensation to farmers because of mad cow disease, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an opportunity to debate ME so that we might get proper levels of research on it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise to find a special opportunity, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The Leader of the House will be aware that the present severe weather has resulted in a great many vessels of the inshore fleet being confined to port. He will be aware also that, with the allocation of quotas for white fish, the price of white fish at the quayside has rocketed. Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about arranging as soon as possible a debate on the crisis in the fishing industry and about ensuring that there are adequate supplies for processors? If something is not done to allocate quotas properly and efficiently, it will be cheaper to buy salmon and chips than to buy cod and chips.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was a debate on that general topic not many days before the Christmas recess. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Should not we abandon the debate on student loans—the debate that is about to take place—until we have had a chance to discuss the quite disgraceful leaflet on top-up loans that has been produced by the Department of Education and Science? The leaflet is clearly party political propaganda and should have been produced by Conservative central office. It is not something which should involve the expenditure of public funds and the use of civil servants' time. It tells us what we will decide later today in the debate. Does a Russian-type constitution now apply to this country, in that the state and the governing party are considered to be synonymous?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that the leaflet will enable the hon. Gentleman to make a better informed contribution than usual to today's debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it really right that on Tuesday evening, on the Church of England Measure, the most delicate matters, which have been considered deeply by the Synod of the Church of England, should be decided by such people as Scots Presbyterians married to Roman Catholics and by other assorted Members of Parliament? Without wishing to open 150 years of contentious history on the disestablishment of the Church, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have any reckoning as to how many hon. Members are practising bona fide members of the Church of England? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a very serious matter. In all this, what exactly is the role of the Minister of Agriculture in purporting to make statements, which have given great offence to some senior deans and to others who are senior in the Church of England, about policy on which his Ministry does not speak officially? May we have some reflection on that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member's ingenuity can be relied upon to tax my resources more than can that of most hon. Members. My response must be that that debate will take place in accordance with the established procedures of this House in relation to the established Church. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise these matters then. He knows as well as I do that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture takes part in such ecclesiastical debates in a non-agricultural capacity.

Mr. William O'Brien: After the traumatic two hours that I have just spent, I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware of the significant problem that faces many people who want rented accommodation. Not just in the south of England, but particularly north of Westminster, there is an acute shortage of affordable accommodation. In view of the recent statement on mortgage interest increases and of the fact that more people will face homelessness, will the Leader of the House agree to an early debate on the situation?
As a result of the increased mortgage interest rate and the lack of accommodation, many thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of this country face a very difficult situation. There will be more homelessness. This is an important issue, which the Leader of the House ought to put on the agenda. I am asking for an early debate on it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is more than open to the Opposition to place that item on the Order Paper for an Opposition day debate. He will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is giving the closest possible attention to the general question of homelessness, as he should be doing.

Mersey Tunnels

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Department of Transport to give Mersey Travel financial assistance with the funding of the Mersey tunnels.
This matter is specific, because the case for assistance was put to the Minister as long ago as 28 November 1989. It is estimated that, without the assistance that Mersey Travel has asked for, each poll tax payer on Merseyside will pay £10 on their community charge. In addition to the other burdens that they will have to bear, that will be a great burden. The Department's attitude contrasts with the support that was given to the Humber bridge.
The matter is important because it will have dangerous effects on the economies of Liverpool, Birkenhead and Wirral. Traders and shops in central Liverpool and Birkenhead have suffered because of the tolls that have existed for years. Increased tolls will have a bad impact on them.
The matter should be given urgent consideration because, in the immediate future, Mersey Travel must make its budget for 1990–91. The voice of Parliament—several hon. Members have raised this matter today—should be heard before it makes its final decision.
One hopes that we shall have convinced the Government to change their mind, at least partially, after the arguments have been aired. Labour Members asked for a meeting to discuss these issues, but we did not get

one. It is therefore important for the House to discuss the matter, so that we can at least have a proper debate before it is finalised.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that be believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the funding of the Mersey tunnels.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, I must decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a debate should be granted to take precedence over the business set down for today or Monday.
I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order regarding your reply, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend—I use that phrase advisedly—the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) argued his case persuasively and well, and. I do not disagree with your judgment. Perhaps it is not clearly understood, however, that that application was about not only Merseyside and the Mersey tunnel but the fundamental approach to estuarial crossings and the rights of people to have their roads, tunnels and bridges—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Walton asked for a debate under Standing Order No. 20. There are many other ways in which the matter can be brought before the House.

Points of Order

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday 31 January, I presented a petition to the House calling for a ban on Rottweilers and other breeds of dogs as domestic pets. I told the House that 15,000 signatures had been gathered in support of it. I now recognise that that statement was wrong and that those 15,000 signatures were gathered in support of a separate petition calling for general legislation to control dogs. I wish to set the record straight on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: That is very good of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that note will be taken of that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions, I mentioned a leaflet on student top-up loans, which we are to debate. The leaflet was available to hon. Members on the board two days ago. It sets out the provisions of the Bill and pre-empts the debate that we are about to have. To cover itself, it says only:
The provisions of the Bill are open to amendment in Parliament. Some features of the scheme described below may consequently change.
The problem is that there is no opportunity for this to be distributed anywhere until we have had a discussion later today and moved to Third Reading. The Department of Education and Science is just assuming that the position of the Government will be carried and we will lose all the amendments that we have tabled.
On those grounds, I think that there should he a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can give a ruling on that. It is a matter for the House to decide whether to accept or reject an amendment.

Mr. James Pawsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the Department on the production of this most excellent leaflet.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member mind doing that during the course of the debate, because it is not a matter of order within the Chamber?

Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the guardian of access to this House, would you inquire from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the superintendent in charge of the area surrounding the Palace of Westminster about the arrangements that were made at midday and in the early afternoon to close roads along which we can gain access to the House? I understand from radio bulletins that this was caused by hundreds of coaches depositing thousands of students at Battersea park, I believe, so that they could begin a march relating to the matter that we are about to discuss. It seems to me that it is very serious when so many major roads, particularly the Embankment, are closed. This causes severe damage to the economy of London and to the free passage of the citizens of London. Can you inquire into this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member alleging that he was prevented from getting to the House, because that is what the Sessional Orders are concerned with? They do not cover the other citizens of our metropolis.

Mr. Tracey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I was indeed diverted on my passage to the House and it caused me considerable inconvenience.

Mr Speaker: I will look into it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would you also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is one of your general duties to see that not only Members of Parliament are able to get to this place but also constituents, when it is necessary for them to come and lobby this place? If 25,000 students have joined together in a demonstration against this Bill on student loans, the only regret I have is that they were diverted the wrong way round the west end of London. They should have finished at Westminster bridge and shut the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My responsibility is the Sessional Orders, although of course it is a citizen's right to lobby Parliament.

Orders of the Day — Education (Student Loans) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

STUDENT LOANS SCHEME ADVISORY COMMITTEE

'.—(1) An Advisory Committee on the Student Loans Scheme ("the Committee") shall be established by the Secretary of State.

(2) the Committee shall be composed of not fewer than 15 nor more than 20 members,
(a) of whom one half shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for persons who appear to him representative of vice-chancellors, polytechnic and college directors, of academic staff, of students and of employers; and
(b) one half of whom shall be other persons appointed by the Secretary of State
(c) provided that, if there is an odd number of members of the Advisory Committee, members appointed under section 2(b) above shall form the majority.

(3) Secretary of State shall make annual reports to the Committee on the operation of the student loans scheme, and shall supply such other information to the Committee as the Committee may reasonably request.

(4) The Committee shall make annual reports on the progress of the student loans scheme, and may make such other reports as are required of it under schedule 2 or as it considers necessary.

(5) Any report under section (4) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 14—Consultation over certification—
'Prior to the making of regulations under Schedule 2, paragraph 2, the Secretary of State shall hold consultations with representatives from the institutions which will be required to provide certification and jointly agree a method by which certificates are to be provided.'.

New clause 17

REVIEW COMMITTEE, SCOTLAND

'.—(1) A Review Committee on the operation and effect of the workings of the student loan scheme in Scotland shall be established by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

(2) The Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and be composed of not fewer than 15 and not more than 21 members—
(a) of whom not more than 10 and not fewer than 7 shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to represent vice-chancellors of Scottish universities, college principals and directors of centrally funded institutions, Scottish local and regional authorities, directors of education in Scotland, Scottish students and employers;
(b) other persons who shall provide a majority on the Committee of not more than one person.

(3) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall make available to the Committee such information as it deems necessary for the discharge of its duties.

(4) The Committee shall make annual reports on the progress of the student loans scheme in Scotland, including its effects on four-year undergraduate courses, and may make such other reports as it considers necessary.

(5) Any report under section (4) above shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert:—

'.—( ) Before making regulations under Schedule 2 to this Act shall consult representatives of vice-chancellors, polytechnic directors students, local authority associations, college directors, teaching staff, and any other bodies or individuals he considers relevant.'.

Amendment No. 1, in schedule 2, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
'(2) No regulations shall be made under paragraph (1) above until the Student Loans Advisory Committee has considered a draft of such regulations, and has reported its opinions to the Secretary of State and to Parliament upon the general effect of the regulations, in particular on—
(a) whether hardship has been caused by the loss of housing benefit income support: and
(b) the effect on disabled students.'.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to "Erskine May", page 458, with regard to the new clauses and amendments that we are about to discuss. I submit that the House may have a unique procedural difficulty. The Report stage of a Bill is conducted on the basis that what is said in Committee remains valid. My point of order concerns the position in which important pledges are given in Committee in perfectly good faith and are subsequently invalidated, but where the selection appears to give no opportunity for hon. Members to remain in order and correct these assurances at Report stage except, I submit, on a point of order.
Although I recognise that the substance is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to the assurances that were given by Opposition Front-Bench Members. To give just one example, the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I cannot be held responsible for assurances given by Opposition Front-Bench Members. I have been very liberal in my selection of amendments this afternoon.

Mr. Stewart: I am not, of course, criticising your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker. My point is that pledges were honourably given in Committee by Opposition Front-Bench Members and they have subsequently been invalidated. I do not see how those on the Opposition Front Bench can correct the position unless they either——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Government Bill and any pledges given by the Opposition are not material. They are a matter for argument in the course of the discussions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. I feel aggrieved about the publication of a leaflet, and I have raised the matter twice in the Chamber. What would be the proper procedure for me to follow to challenge the details in the leaflet?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it has never been the practice of the Chair to give tactical procedural advice. I am sure that many of his hon. Friends who are sitting near him can do that far more ably than I could.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on placing more weight on Opposition


undertakings than on Government undertakings. He is entirely right to do so. New clause 2 would establish a student loans scheme advisory committee to give overall advice on the nature and administration of the student loans scheme. New clause 17 would establish a student loans scheme review committee for Scotland. The other amendments are subsidiary to those main purposes.
The need for continuing advice about the loans scheme to the Secretary of State and for its continual review has never been clearer. The scheme was bad when it left the Floor of the House on 5 December, but after two months in Committee it has emerged much worse. The scheme has far fewer friends even than on 5 December. Since then, the banks have abandoned their involvement—which was central to the scheme's administration—as the now benighted Mr. John Quinton made clear in his note to his colleagues. He circulated it on the day when the Secretary of State told him that the Prime Minister was "fizzing with fury" about the banks' abandonment of the scheme.
The scheme is even more expensive than we expected. The Government have ebbed and flowed in their claims. They have said both that the burden on the taxpayer should be reduced by the introduction of a loan scheme and that they are being exceptionally generous to the students with taxpayers' money. After our interrogation of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), it emerged that the scheme will waste at least £2 billion between now and 2010. The money will disappear into a vast black hole of administrative expenses, defaults and deferrals. It is money that could and should have been targeted on students who are most in need and on the expansion of higher education.
I learnt today, in a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that his estimate of at least £2 billion does not take account of the significant, but as yet unquantifiable, cost of the interest rate subsidy which is also involved in the scheme. I said to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in Committee that the interest subsidy should be costed and he replied that it would be "hypothetical" to do so. I understand that future predictions are hypotheses, but we need to have written into the arrangements for the scheme accounting conventions that require the cost of the money on which the Student Loans Company will be lending to be brought into the account books of the student loans company. Were it a nationalised industry, that would be the case. A nationalised industry would not borrow money from the Government at nil cost; it would have to pay interest on it, just as British Rail will pay a full rate of interest on the extra £220 million which the Government will generously give it, as the Minister for Public Transport announced last night.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I know that the Opposition's policy is to take away the student loan and not to replace it, thereby reducing the resources available to students. Is the hon. Gentleman compounding that meanness by suggesting that it is too expensive to offer an interest rate subsidy?

Mr. Straw: As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary knows well, I suggest that we should follow proper

accounting conventions so that we know the full cost of the scheme which, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), supported by many of his hon. Friends, so eloquently declared on 20 October in this House, involves a transfer of resources from students who most need the resources to those who need them least. The Government have a history, as we find from "Social Trends", published this morning, and from other figures which they refuse to publish, of making poor families and people poorer and of transferring money from those groups and from middle-income families to the best-off in our society. There never was £2 billion for the poorest families, but the Government have been able to find £2 billion for the richest families, and for the moneylenders and administrators of the scheme.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I was considering what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said. We made the point to him many times in Committee that he is giving the impression that the Government are like a charitable institution because they are giving a lot of money to the students. In fact, the Government's aim is to give only half as much to the students ultimately and to leave them in dire debt at the end. That is what the scheme really involves.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, except that he is being characteristically over-generous to the Government. What is clear from the weasel words of Ministers is that they do not intend to stop at 50–50. They intend—they have never denied this or committed themselves to stop at 50–50—the full replacement of the grant system by loans. Does the Secretary of State want to deny that?

Mr. James Pawsey: rose——

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may feel that he should be promoted, but he is not yet the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State wants to deny what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made clear in Committee, I shall be happy to give way now or at any stage during my speech. Everyone should be clear that the Government's intention is to replace the whole of the student grant system by loans.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose——

Mr. Pawsey: rose——

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I do not want to intervene too often as I shall have an opportunity to speak later. However, I must nail that comment. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what he said is not true. We have made it clear on many occasions that the student grant scheme for maintenance support will continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is still on his preamble, but I am sure that he will now rapidly come to the new clauses and the amendments.

Mr. Straw: I am dealing with the central case for the need for advice to be given to the Secretary of State. If, as we suspect—the Secretary of State did not deny it, although he made an intervention just now—the Government's intention is to continue to replace grants by


loans until there are no grants and all loans, that should be considered by-[HON. MEMBERS:"No."] The Secretary of State must talk to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. In Committee—we can easily turn up the record—we asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether he would commit himself categorically to ensuring that once the 50–50 position was reached, that would be the end and the Government would not thereafter reduce the grant and increase the loan. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary was clear about that and said that he would not give such an undertaking.
The Opposition understand that there is no identity of policy between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State. This is not the first time that it has happened. I shall give way to whichever one of them wants to offer me any truth on the matter.

Mr. MacGregor: I am intervening for the simple reason that the hon. Gentleman keeps getting it wrong. The position is quite clear. We are uprating the grant for next year, as already announced. The grant will then remain frozen and the loan will take over from that part of the grant. There is no intention to remove the grant, and we have made it clear on many occasions that the grant will continue. It is not being abolished and I do not know how many times I have to say that to the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to make a point about the position in the year 2000 and something, when probably neither my hon. Friend nor I will be here. Our position is utterly clear—[Interruption.] I was making a point to demonstrate what a ridiculous charge the hon. Gentleman was making. I will not be here then; it is a long way away. We have made our position absolutely clear: the grant for student support continues. I do not know how many times I have to say it.

Mr. Straw: I understand exactly what the Secretary of State is saying. It is an important issue. There will come a point where the cash value of the grant equals the cash value of the loan. Our point to the Under-Secretary of State, which he dodged, is that although that may not happen for a long time, we want to know the Government's intentions. When that point is reached at, say, £2,500, would a Conservative Administration, if still in power, replace the grant by a loan? That was the matter on which the Minister refused to give any undertaking.
The fact that the Secretary of State has admitted that half the real value of the grant will be replaced by a loan illustrates the complete deception of the leaflet to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred. The leaflet, a piece of Conservative party propaganda paid for by the taxpayer, makes it clear that these are top-up loans, not replacement loans. The Secretary of State is an intelligent man. He must know that that is a piece of deceit because at least half the grant will be replaced by a loan.
I have already said that there are far fewer friends for the scheme now than when we debated it on the Floor of the House on 5 December. The scheme is more expensive. It will penalise significant groups of students, prospective students and graduates. It will penalise those on longer courses, particularly in Scotland. It will penalise medical students and prospective teachers. It will unquestionably harm the access of students or potential students from low-income homes.

Mr. John Maples: I understand that a future Labour Government would double the number of

students, reduce the parental contribution and restore the grant to its real 1979 level. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his party is committed to spending the necessary public money to achieve that?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework on our policy rather than making it up as he speaks. I will send him the holy text to study, and in it he will find the answer. Because we will not be wasting money on a loans scheme, there will be cash to pay for the expansion that we believe is necessary in higher education. There is not the cash to pay for the Government's proposed expansion. That is why in Committee the Under-Secretary of State abandoned the solemn pledge of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), to double the proportions over 25 years. That, too, was torn up by the Minister.
Because the loans scheme has been shown to be so deficient, the Government are becoming less and less popular, as they are in respect of their education policies generally. The poll in The Guardian this morning shows that not only is there a good lead for the Labour party overall but there is a magnificent lead for Labour's education policy, and education is becoming more and more a salient issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I must ask the Front Bench speakers to help the Chair to keep the debate on the rails. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run on his preamble. I am sure that he will now direct his remarks to the new clauses and amendments.

Mr. Straw: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to extend our gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State because every time he opens his mouth he adds another 0·5 per cent. to Labour's lead on education policies.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have made some very grand claims for the merits of the loans scheme—the Under-Secretary of State with more conviction than the Secretary of State. I learnt only recently that, on coming into office, the Secretary of State, who is an intelligent man, examined the scheme in great detail and decided that it should not go ahead because it was a bucket of rubbish. He tried to secure the agreement of the Prime Minister to abandoning the scheme but failed. The fact that the Secretary of State has distanced himself from the scheme throughout and refused to take part in the Standing Committee shows the truth of that.

Mr. MacGregor: May I tell the hon. Gentleman for the second time that he has got it completely wrong? There is no truth whatever in what he said about my view when I took office. I examined the scheme to make sure that the details were, as I thought, right. I have examined them subsequently to make sure that all the details are right. But I never made any suggestion of the sort that the hon. Gentleman alleged. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am looking forward fervently to the time when we reach the new clauses.

Mr. Straw: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Who is right will emerge when the Cabinet papers and other documents are published in 30 years' time. I suspect that the Secretary


of State's examination of the details of the scheme was more thorough than he suggests. I know that to have been the case.
As to the virtue of the new clause, it is about establishing an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on the merits of the scheme. Had the advisory committee been in place when the Secretary of State was examining the details, he would have been left in no doubt that the scheme should be abandoned.

Mr. Pawsey: rose——

Mr. Straw: I will not give way because I want to bring my remarks to a close.
We need a continuing examination of the financial implications of the scheme, of its effects on access and of the effect of the withdrawal of social security, which I understand the Secretary of State for Social Services will announce on Monday—after, rather than before, the Bill has been considered in the House. If that is the case, it is reprehensible of the Secretary of State for Education to be party to a decision which cuts student income immediately, in some cases by £300 or £400. It is also reprehensible that that social security decision should be announced after the House has completed discussion of the Bill.
The entire scheme will be operated by regulation. The Secretary of State sought to make a virtue of that. When other schemes are run principally by regulation, as in social security, an advisory committee is established to advise the Government, because it is rightly thought that proposals of such significance in secondary legislation should be scrutinised by a relatively independent committee. That is the principal purpose of the new clause and the similar new clause in respect of Scotland.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancester): rose——

Mr. Straw: I am just drawing my remarks to a close.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has said absolutely nothing so far.

Mr. Straw: I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not like my speech. I have never made a speech here which she has applauded.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point is that the hon. Gentleman is talking hot air.

Mr. Straw: I do not want to be interrupted any more by the hon. Lady, or I shall never finish my remarks.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Straw: Very well: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In all the years that I have known the hon. Gentleman he has never drawn attention to the fact that what is proposed is exactly the way in which student grants were introduced in 1962. He has never beefed about it until now.

Mr. Straw: I am not sure what the hon. Lady means.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is what was proposed in 1962.

Mr. Straw: Ah, that point. The hon. Lady is completely wrong. She is trying to say that there is a parallel between

this scheme and the Education Act 1962. There is no parallel. I refer the hon. Lady to my speeches on 20 October and 5 December on precisely that point.
For good or ill, social security schemes are also run by regulations. There is an advisory committee to deal with the important regulations put forward. There should be an advisory committee on regulations in respect of the student loans scheme, which is equally important.

5 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: One of the new clauses grouped with new clause 2 refers specifically to Scotland. I note in passing that remarkably few representatives of taxpayers will be members of the review committees proposed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The House should consider the background to the review committees that would be set up by an incoming Labour Government. The hon. Member for Blackburn did not say much about the merits of the specific committees, but he referred in passing to the essential point about his party's policy on student grants. I refer the House to the pledge given by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce). The hon. Member for Oxford, East said on 16 January, and it was repeated many other times:
The hon. Gentleman is correct in his understanding of our pledge to reinstate grants, to increase them in line with inflation".—(Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 January 1990; c. 309.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that grants would be increased over and above inflation, as resources allowed. The key point in that quotation is that that pledge—which has been repeated by the Member for Blackburn—would not necessarily be implemented by an incoming Labour Government. We have that on the record in the House.
The pledges to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred were unequivocally withdrawn by the hon. Member for Derby. South (Mr. Beckett). In the debate on the public expenditure White Paper earlier this week she told the House:
What we are promising is an increase for pensioners and an increase in child benefit. Everything else that is regarded as a desirable aim is also listed, quite clearly and specifically, as something that we hope to do as resources allow."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167. c. 179.]
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred to those remarks later in the debate.
The hon. Member for Oxford. East must either withdraw the specific pledge that he made in Committee—not the pledge about increasing grants, but the pledge to reinstate grants and increase them in line with inflation—or he must repudiate what the hon. Member for Derby, South said. There is no third position that the Opposition can take on what their policy would be if the proposed review committees were set up by an incoming Labour Government.
During this important debate, I hope that the Opposition will tell us whether they withdraw the pledge given in Committee or whether they repudiate what the hon. Member for Derby, South said.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished and helpful Scottish education Minister and is thoughtful on these matters. What does he say to Sir Ken Fraser, the vice-chancellor of the university of Glasgow, who asks what will happen to the Scottish


four-year course? As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about this, perhaps he will tell us whether he is happy with the present position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) an extended preamble to his speech. I am doing the same for the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I am sure that in response to that he will address his remarks to the new clauses.

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in Committee. A later group of amendments refers specifically to Scotland, and I hope to catch your eye during that debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition have a clear choice. They must either withdraw the pledges made honourably and honestly to the Committee or repudiate what the hon. Member for Derby, South said in the public expenditure debate in the House earlier this week.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to debate the review provisions of the scheme. Those of us who served on the Committee know that it was an unusual Committee. First, we debated an idea whose time has not yet come. If it has come, the Government have not yet revealed what it is. Secondly, we debated a scheme which changed every time that we thought that we understood how the Government proposed to work it.
When the Committee first sat, we were told that we were about to have a scheme that could be run by the banks. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the week before Christmas there was a bit of an explosion and the banks disappeared in a puff of smoke. We began the new year with the fall-back position that the universities would administer the scheme. After much encouragement, the Secretary of State wrote to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
An extraordinary dialogue took place between the Department of Education and Science and the CVCP, partly by letter and partly in the press, about what scheme was on the table. The Secretary of State argued against a scheme that involved national insurance contributions. I have seen the correspondence about that. The CVCP explained that it had not sought to persuade the Secretary of State to adopt that scheme in the first place.
The student loans scheme has had a pregnancy almost as long as that of the Labour party's policy on local government finance. The scheme has had a pregnancy of years.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Two and a half years.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Lady says, it has been two and a half years. We still have no idea who will implement the scheme. In that sense, it is unique.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to make the position clear. I hope that my letter to The Times did so. I had received letters from several vice-chancellors, which said that our scheme should reconsider the repayment of loans through national insurance contributions. One academic has advocated such an arrangement. On one occasion I gave nine good reasons to several vice-chancellors why I thought that such a scheme would not make sense. They suggested that it

would be useful if that analysis could be circulated to all vice-chancellors. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he had seen my letter, so he will know that it contains nine good reasons. That was sent out last Friday. If he reads it, he will see from the opening lines that it was on a completely different matter from what the chairman of the CVCP decided to announce last Friday. In a sense, his public announcement—not a letter to me—crossed in the post with my letter to him. It is obvious from the opening paragraph of my letter that it had nothing to do with what he recommended.

Mr. Hughes: I entirely accept that. The Secretary of State will know from my comments in Committee that I, too, do not approve of a national insurance scheme. He argued against it on Second Reading, and the argument has been put forward elsewhere.
As we begin the Report stage, the working of the scheme is not clear. The DES and CVCP disagree. The vice-chancellors have replied to the debate that began before the turn of the year. That debate has been tidied up and everyone is agreed that repayments through national insurance are not on the agenda. The vice-chancellors are still not persuaded that the Government's scheme is right. They argue for a scheme which, collectively, they have decided is better.
The first idea of this hardly substantial Bill—a loan scheme—has been rejected by the banks. The second idea—a loans scheme operated by the universities—has not yet been adopted by the universities. The universities and colleges tell the Secretary of State that they have another scheme that they hope to persuade him to accept. It is not altogether surprising that at this stage there should be an attempt to ask for information and for a mechanism for reviewing a scheme that is still a shell and without content because we are taking at least one if not several substantial steps in the dark.
The group of amendments and new clauses contains those tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his hon. Friends to which he addressed himself, after the preamble. However, I wish specifically to address new clause 14, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. I understand that the proposals have been grouped together because they all relate to consultation. Consultation is not something that has been carried out rigorously by the Government so far, and even if it has been carried out, the Government have certainly not listened when people with an interest have replied.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that any scheme such as this, which will take many years to come to fruition, needs to be viewed on a long-term basis and in the light of the possibility that in the next decade or so we may have a Labour Government or even a Social and Liberal Democrat Government. Many of the amendments seek to ensure that there is no hardship to students. In the months that we have been in Committee, we have heard that the Labour party is committed to removing the 25 per cent. uplift that the loans give to students. However, we have now discovered that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has taken away the pledge to increase the base grants—that is, the amount that is below the 25 per cent.—by the rate of inflation. There is, therefore, no pledge from the Labour party to increase the basic grant in line with inflation, and nor is there a pledge to give back


social security benefits. Before the hon. Gentleman comes to new clause 14, will he address himself to the way in which the Social and Liberal Democrats view Labour's reduction in what the Government are proposing as an uplift in student benefits?

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resist the temptation to say things that would be outside the scope of the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that you might say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly answer those parts of the hon. Gentleman's question that properly come within the debate. Indeed, he asked some perfectly proper questions and, having served on the Committee, he will remember our debates.
One crucial issue is the cost of the scheme. It is perfectly proper to ask how much public money any Government will put into funding students after 16 or 18. The Government have tried for many years to address that perfectly proper question, which all parties must answer. I am clearly not going to defend the answers given by the Labour party, which by its own admission—the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) has said this regularly—have always been qualified by that famous phrase, "As and when resources allow"——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Under Labour, they never do.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady says, "Under Labour, they never do", and, indeed, under Labour, they often have not. If income tax is to be kept low, which I understand is a new idea, I am sceptical about whether resources will allow very much very soon.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose——

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I can deal first with the question asked by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) about the cost of the scheme. My hon. Friends and I are committed—I have given the figures elsewhere, but I shall repeat them—to reinstating the benefits that the Government propose to abolish—although they have not yet done so, as the hon. Gentleman knows—and to reinstating grants at the present level. According to our calculations, the increase in taxation that that would cost on the basis of present figures is 1p in the pound for higher rate taxpayers only. I am prepared to live with that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman or the Labour party would be, although I hope that both would.

Mr. Stewart: rose——

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but please may I finish this point?
One crucial reason for having a body that can advise the Government on the scheme is to ensure that costings can be given regularly, not only to those of us who are spokespeople for education and who are involved in the House, but to the rest of hon. Members. The amount that our education system costs is a matter of public accounts. I give way now to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not criticising what he is saying about his party's position, but he may have misinterpreted what the Opposition said in Committee. Does he agree that in Committee the Labour party's pledge to reinstate grants and to increase them in line with inflation was unqualified? That unqualified pledge must now be withdrawn in the light of what the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must get back to the subject of advisory committees and consultation.

Mr. Hughes: The record speaks for itself. The key point is that the Government have made it clear that they are proposing loans instead of increasing grants.
I hope that the debate will not be as partisan as some. The hon. Member for Eastwood was an active member of the Committee and I hope that he and other hon. Members will realise that we are in a somewhat unusual position because a Government who are committed to reducing public expenditure have come to the House with a scheme which will increase public expenditure in the foreseeable future and which only after at least 10 years, and probably after a minimum of 13, but possibly after 20 years or more, will produce a net reduction in public expenditure. I repeat that that has come from a Conservative Government. We must be sceptical of a scheme that comes with such enormous frontloading on the public accounts.
There is a danger in so arranging the financing of higher education that one is doing two things at the same time. First, the Government have produced a scheme that costs the taxpayer more, but simultaneously gives the student less. That is an extraordinary paradox. The student is given less and must make up the rest by loans. That is why we need to be committed to looking at the workings of the scheme from the beginning.
In general, the amendments and new clauses seek to do two things, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be well aware. First, they seek specifically to set up an advisory committee that will report regularly on the matters that have been of substantial concern, not just to Opposition politicians, and to students and parents, but to vice-chancellors, principals and people concerned with the academic well-being of our country. The most substantial concern is whether we shall increase or decrease the numbers of people going into higher education. That is an important question because unless we significantly increase those numbers, we as a country will not succeed. That is the crude reality. I accept the difficulty of projecting far ahead, but I know that we need to do everything in our power to increase the numbers entering higher education, and nothing that deters those people should be part of the policy of any Government.
Like other Opposition Members and even some Conservative Members, I feel sincere scepticism about whether replacing a grants scheme with a scheme that will be half-loan and half-grant will do anything other than reduce the prospect of increasing the take-up of higher education, especially among those who do not use it at the moment.

Mr. David Alton: Does my hon. Friend agree that two groups will suffer most as a result of the student loans proposals? They include people


who come from more deprived backgrounds and who will not wish to have an albatross of debt around their neck, which, in many cases, they will never be able to repay. The advisory committee would also need to consider the position of special groups, such as medical students, who will have incredible debts attached to their courses which, again, they will never be able to repay. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will he a deterrent to people from poorer backgrounds?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has made a general point, with which I agree and should like to support. However, I shall amplify it in this respect. We need to be seriously concerned about three categories of people. The first group is more often found in constituencies such as those that my hon. Friend and I represent. I refer to young people from working-class backgrounds who face enormous peer group pressure at 16, 17 or 18 to take up a job rather than to go on to college. At the moment, they are in our colleges, polytechnics and universities in only small numbers.
There are also two other groups, who are not particularly found in Liverpool, Mossley Hill, or in Southwark and Bermondsey, but who can be found in any constituency. I refer to people with disabilities, for whom education costs considerably more. At the moment, there is an enormous discrepancy between the amount that they receive for their aids and for the additional costs of meeting their needs, and what those needs actually cost. Under the Government's scheme, they will have to finance that difference by loan. I am talking about students who may be blind, deaf or physically handicapped, who are now often deterred by cost and who will be even more deterred.
Thirdly, there are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, those who decide to do the jobs which, it has been decided, need four, five or six-year courses. That group will include medical students, architects, vets and, most unfortunate of the lot, anyone who happens to be brought up in Scotland and who wants to stay there to go to university, or anybody who, for good reason, decides that the course that he wants to follow is in Scotland. Such students will have to borrow more and repay more. That is why one of the new clauses is related specifically to Scotland and I expect that colleagues from Scotland will speak to it.
I hope that the hon. Member for Eastwood and others will appreciate that there is severe concern that in a country such as Scotland, with only 10 university institutions, it is predicted that one, at least, could be lost because of the transfer of students elsewhere, who currently go to Scottish universities and colleges. I am unwilling to countenance, without a fight, the loss of one of our premier institutions of higher education. Certainly, colleagues from north of the border, of whichever party, should fight hard to retain all the institutions in Scotland, none of which, to my knowledge, has anything but the highest reputation.
There is a clear need for any loans scheme to be monitored. The only way to do so is to have a body of experts who will advise the Secretary of State. If the Under-Secretary of State was right in his predictions in Committee that the scheme will be a great success, he has nothing to fear. Therefore, I hope that he will respond to and welcome the new clause. To his credit, the Under-Secretary made one concession in Committee. The

Government have yielded one inch—or perhaps a centimetre. They will have to yield a bit more if the Bill is to get through the other place. They have conceded that there will be an annual report by the Students Loans Company. That is kind and generous.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is very easily pleased because the Students Loans Company is required to do that anyway under the Companies Act 1985.

Mr. Hughes: The Government conceded on their original position. However, the hon. Gentleman is right—at the end of the day the Government would have had to agree to that once they had sorted out the type of company that was to administer the scheme.
I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that we need an annual statement on the performance of the scheme. I hope that he will also accept that the people who should have a chance to look at that are hon. Members and Parliament. The way to do so is for an advisory body to produce regular reports, starting soon.
The Government always argue that we must be efficient, make good use of our economic resources and provide good value for money. If the Government believe in that, as I believe they do, I hope that they will accept that a system must be put in place to ensure that the scheme is run efficiently, provides value for money and uses the resources properly. If the scheme does not work and the disadvantaged are not going on to college, the advisory body should advise the Government to drop it. It is no good having an organisation to advise on the scheme if it is unable to say that it is a bad scheme. The cost of a student loans advisory committee would be minuscule in relation to many of the costs that the Government have already incurred in developing the scheme's variants.
Another important point is that the Government must take consultations seriously. The Secretary of State has been in office for about seven months. He does not yet have a reputation for listening to those with an interest in the subject.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not nonsense. The Secretary of State tried to coerce the hanks. Lloyds originally said no and the others were unhappy. He desperately hoped that they would deliver, but they said no. He is now trying to persuade the vice-chancellors and principals that they are unhappy. They are clearly unhappy—corespondence is evidence of that, whether in The Times or direct mail to Elizabeth house. The students and teachers are unhappy. We must consult to find out what would be acceptable to the academic community.
This is why my hon. Friends and I tabled new clause 14. We believe that there should be consultation about certification. Schedule 2(2) to the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, which we shall no doubt see if the Bill becomes an Act, require governing bodies of institutions relevant to the scheme to issue certificates stating who is and who is not an eligible student. However, the mechanism has not been agreed.
As I understand it, only last week—I shall be grateful for confirmation—a letter was sent to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals inviting narrow discussion on that specific point. It had wanted to discuss it before.

Mr. Tony Worthington: This is interminable.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that this is interminable. If the Bill had had some detail in it, we should not have to push for these matters at this stage.
We do not yet know whether agreement has yet been reached over certification. It would be helpful to know whether the universities and polytechnics have agreed to a scheme proposed by the Secretary of State, whether, and how much, they will be paid, and whether they are happy with the way that the Government are proceeding.
The Scottish debate, in substance, will come later. However, I hope that in this debate, given that there is a new clause that relates specifically to Scotland, there will be a sign that the Government intend to look after Scotland's interests by taking proper advice.
None of the new clauses or amendments is wrecking and there is no reason why they should not all be entirely acceptable. I hope that the Government will be less confrontational and more open to reasonable arguments put by the Opposition on behalf of all those who are still grossly unhappy with the scheme.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), because when I saw the new clause on the Notice Paper I thought that I could, in principle, support it. However, the preamble was so long and the amble so short that I was not sure what he was on about. Notwithstanding the inadequate speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, it seems that the Government would be well advised to look seriously at what I assume is behind this group of amendments.
I was unable to take part in the debate on 5 December, and I did not vote for the Bill. I will not vote for it tonight unless I get some assurance that something will be done along the lines of the new clause. I shall not he so fatuous as to suggest that the new clause in itself is necessarily acceptable. However, I was deeply disturbed when I read that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals had not been consulted in detail. They circulated a paper to hon. Members, dated this week, which says:
The CVCP wrote to DES a year ago, offering to discuss alternatives. That offer has not been taken up.
Either that is a direct untruth or it is not. If it is true, it is regrettable. When embarking on a change in the structure of student finance, it is important to discuss in detail the mechanism of that new structure with those who will have a key role in its administration.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I agree.

Mr. Cormack: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees, and I hope that the Secretary of State agrees, too.
I have always had a high regard for the Secretary of State. I thought that he was an extremely distinguished Minister of Agriculture, who had a well deserved reputation as a man who listened, thought deeply and talked with those who would be affected by the policies over which he was presiding. I hope that. at this late stage, we shall have some real discussions about the scheme. After all, one need not have followed the matter in minute detail to realise that there have been a few problems along the way. The fact that the clearing banks decided that they could not go along with the scheme, and that the

Government, who have a justifiably splendid reputation for privatisation, are having to set up a nationalised bank to administer it, is slightly bizarre.
5.30 pm
In the principle behind new clause 2—I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will readily and immediately call me to order if I stray too far—there is the germ of an idea. There is nothing to be lost by having a consultative body of some sort to help with the administration of the scheme. Indeed, there is everything to be gained from it.
I have never been opposed in principle to a loan ingredient, but there are many obvious disadvantages that have to be dealt with. I am bound to say that, in this short and extremely permissive Bill, I am not sure whether those have been adequately dealt with. I am not opposed in principle to such a scheme now, but I want to feel confident that those who aspire to enter higher education will not be deterred. I want to be confident that those who have enjoyed the fruits of higher education will not be penalised in those crucial years of their lives when they marry and settle down and become formative members of society.
I could be the better assured on those points if we had some such committee, perhaps composed of two or three distinguished vice-chancellors and principals, perhaps two or three representatives of the National Students Union, perhaps even the immediate past president, and people who know about higher education. That would be consistent with the spirit of the new clause. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) stop getting excited? She is always excited, but this is the day after Valentine's day. There is the germ of a good idea in new clause 2. I am not tying myself to precise details or numbers, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not either.
We could move forward in a sensible way. Many hon. Members are generalists. We do not have time to acquire detailed knowledge. We are sometimes far too arrogant about the way in which legislation that we pass will affect the lives of people with whom it deals. We should recognise that vice-chancellors and principals, and even those who hold high office in student unions, may know a little more about this matter than some of us do.
To have a body on which such people would sit in order to advise would lend credibility to the scheme. It would make it a much fairer scheme and people would have confidence in it. At the end of the day the Government would get their way because there would be a loan ingredient, a restructuring of finance and proper and continuous consultation with, I hope, regular reports, not just on an annual actuarial basis but detailed reports on how the scheme is working.

Mr. Steve Norris: My hon. Friend makes his point with his customary good humour. He is rightly concerned about any scheme that might deter access to higher education. But if he is, as I am sure he is, prepared to go beyond the rather obvious statement that most of us would prefer to be given something for free rather than lent it—that is so obvious it is not worth debating—is it not interesting to look at all the European countries where loans form a much larger proportion of the financing of education than is proposed in this mild measure but where access rates to higher education are significantly greater? Does my hon. Friend not agree that,


if he is seeking, as I am sure we all are, to improve access rates to higher education, the one place that we need not bother to look is at the balance between loans and grants?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, in responding to that, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will speak within the confines of the new clauses and the amendments.

Mr. Cormack: I shall seek to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall respond briefly by reiterating that, in principle. I am not against a loan ingredient. I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science between 1979 and 1983 which looked into the financing of higher education. We received evidence from many people, including Maureen Woodall and other experts on loans. We looked at the matter dispassionately and we did not rule out loans.
But it is obvious to many people—I put it carefully—that there is some disquiet about the present proposal. If we are to engender confidence in these proposals and to carry people along with us, which is what I want to do, the establishment of such a body—I say "such a body" because the new clause has not got it absolutely right—would help in that direction.
That is why, relating my remarks specifically to the new clauses and amendments under discussion, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will earn my support in the Lobby tonight by saying that they are prepared to have wide-ranging consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals such as the committee says have not been held to date, and that they would have as the object of those discussions the establishment of a body along the lines described.

Mr. Worthington: I support the proposal for a review committee for Scotland. Such a body is necessary because the voice of Scotland was not heard on the student loans scheme. The scheme was devised in London and transported to Scotland. The Minister was then shot as the carrier of the bad news. There was no input from Scotland. Therefore, a review committee is essential so that Scottish opinion can be taken into account in future.
I hope that the review committee's terms of reference will he broadened, beyond the proposal for it to consider the student loans scheme, to include the present state of student finance. The financial situation of students is becoming dramatically worse. In Scotland they are already paying 20 per cent. poll tax, and that will soon apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. That cannot be shrugged off.
Their housing benefit is to be lost. In Scotland, 65 per cent. of students do not live at home. They receive grants for living elsewhere, but where will they be living in the autumn? No one seems to care about that. Statistics from Edinburgh show that the loss of benefit will be £500 on average per year. Where will that come from ? Students will clearly not be able to stay in their present flats because they will not be able to afford them. Will they have to take out another loan? Who will build new accommodation for them?
The Government have made no commitment to updating allowances for mature students. The Government have simply said that they will consider that in the future, if resources allow. Some Conservative

Members will recognise that expression. Surely any Government would give such an undertaking to ensure that we have mature students.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington: No, because I have only a short amount of time left, and I am conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is no time limit.

Mr. Worthington: Then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would have been simpler if the hon. Gentleman had done so to begin with, would it not? At present, mature students have no statutory right to loans, but the Bill will give them one.

Mr. Worthington: I have just checked with my right hon. and hon. Friends, and none of us understands the hon. Lady's point.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Then the hon. Gentleman should have studied the subject in more detail.

Mr. Worthington: I make the point that one group of students who will suffer particularly badly are those who take the gamble of giving up an existing job to return to study, despite the fact that they have families to support and mortgages to pay, and incur a loan. Incidentally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am told that there is now a time limit on speeches and that I must finish within the next two and half seconds.
The recommendations of the Page report, of which many right hon. and hon. Members may be unaware, are of particular significance. It examined the manpower requirements in veterinary surgery, and, unlike the Riley report, which concluded there was a glut of vets, revealed a shortage and the need for recruitment. Page recommended public funding of 400 vets per year, but emphasised that the number trained should be greater than that and that we should encourage colleges to recruit as many vets as they wanted—but recommended that that innovation should be funded by a general levy on all veterinary students at a college of, it was suggested, £500.
As the Government have accepted that recommendation, they are already dishonouring the pledge that a contribution by students to student finance would be a measure of last resort. If the Government have accepted the principle of a £500 levy on all the veterinary students in any one college, who is to say that that practice will not spread to pharmacy and the other medical professions, to the law, accountancy, and so on? Those high-demand occupations will eventually be barred to people of meagre means and will progressively become the enclaves of those from privileged backgrounds.
If this deplorable legislation is passed, at least a review committee could examine the whole question of, student finance. If we go the way of the Page report, cut oft income. benefit, and introduce student loans, students will suffer not a single loss but multiple loss—and the impact on higher education participation rates will be colossal.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: If the Secretary of State does not listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) or to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that he


will heed the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I concur with almost everything that he said. The amendments would get the Secretary of State and the Government off the hook on which they impaled themselves just before Christmas, when the banks announced that they would not participate in the loan scheme. That cut away the ground beneath the Government and the scheme.
The proposed advisory committee would at least give the Government the opportunity to get it right with a certain amount of dignity. I make it clear that I do not believe in student loans, and that view is shared by many in this country. The students themselves were the subject of a very silly attack by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) who, in a point of order, said that 25,000 students demonstrated in London today. Yes, they hate the scheme—but it does the Government no good to create the impression that students are hated. All right hon. and hon. Members are impeded in their efforts to get here to work every week by London Transport, but if we all raised points of order every time that we were delayed on our travels, we would never get any work done.
5.45 pm
Educational institutions and teachers themselves are also opposed to the scheme. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made sensible proposals in a submission sent to all right hon. and hon. Members. Presumably, it would be represented on the proposed committee. The new clause is exceedingly generous to the Government. The Secretary of State would have the power to appoint all of its members, as there would be no mandatory representatives from outside bodies. The Secretary of State for Scotland would make the appointments for the Scottish committee.
New clause 2 states that half the committee shall he composed of interested parties such as vice-chancellors, principals, students and teachers, and that the other half shall comprise any other persons whom the Secretary of State determines. How can the Secretary of State grumble at that? He would presumably include on the committee representatives of the banks, economists, and other educationists. They would he able honestly to advise the Secretary of State if they felt that the scheme was detrimental to the task of attracting into higher education the people who will be so desperately needed in the 1990s and in the next century. The Secretary of State could then amend the scheme accordingly. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting the new clause.
I do not like amendment No. 13 of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, because, although the Government may be prepared to enter into consultations, they do not listen. I prefer the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, because it stipulates the type of committee that is to be established. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also supports that proposal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do support it. But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as we have only a shadow Bill with no detail, it would be helpful if we could build in a requirement for consultation with all concerned before the

regulations were made? Consultation with universities on the details of the scheme may be all that the Government will accept.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman accepts my point, and I accept his.
We have not yet heard from the Secretary of State whether or not he accepts the new clause, or accepts the principle and will embody it in the Bill in another place. I am pessimistic, but one never knows. Having once been an Education Minister myself, I would welcome the establishment of such a committee to get me off the hook, and would grab the opportunity with both hands.

Mr. Flannery: I suggest one possible reason for the Government's rejection of the amendment. After all, they reject practically everything. The Government have their own Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, which has made a number of progressive proposals. The Government are now busy taking not the slightest notice of that committee's recommendations, and fear that another committee might go beyond the remit that they give it.

Mr. Oakes: My hon. Friend is right. The Government do not like the truth, in education or in any other sphere. Nor do they like independent advice. Even though the new clause comes from the Opposition, it is not a wrecking amendment but is helpful to the Government, education, and students.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has proposed a scheme of graduate tax, but I am not too keen on it. Nevertheless, it would be better than the Government's damn fool scheme. It would be far simpler to administer than the Government's cumbrous scheme. It would be administered by the universities themselves, and it would mean that a certain sum would be paid back in tax, regardless of the course taken.
Several of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Scotland mentioned on Second Reading that Scottish students take four-year bachelor degree courses.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The four-year course is not compulsory. Some 23 per cent. of Scottish students do not take a four-year course.

Mr. Oakes: If 23 per cent. do not take it, then the majority do.
Apart from benefiting Scottish students, a graduate tax as proposed by vice-chancellors and principals would not penalise medical students, whose courses are extremely expensive. Hospital doctors not only have to work 80 or 90 hours a week after they finish their course but get buttons for doing it. The burden of the scheme falls heavily on them, because their course is that much more expensive.
If the clause were accepted in detail—if not in principle—the ideas of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which were submitted to the Government more than 12 months ago, could be considered. Vice-chancellors are not opposed to student loans. They are trying to help the Government out, and to administer the scheme properly. Those ideas could be explored in more detail with Ministers, so that education, students and teachers would be better protected from the mish-mash scheme before the House.
Once the banks pulled out—to the astonishment of the Prime Minister and the Government—the White Paper and the Bill as it stood fell. The amendments and new


clauses give the Government an opportunity to retrieve the situation, and for that reason I ask the Secretary of State to accept them.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall refer in particular to amendment No. 1. I ask the Under-Secretary, who has been dealing with the issue in Committee, whether he has been able to find out exactly how many students will not get an increase in their resources because of the introduction of student loans and the loss of their housing benefit and other social security payments.
In this leaflet, which has been so kindly sent to us—"Top Up Loans for Students—the Government's Proposals"—question 5 asks:
What will be the total resources available to students?
The answer is:
All students will be eligible to apply for additional support from the Access Funds".
The only way in which a large number of students, particularly those in the London area, will have any hope of extra resources is by going cap in hand to the administrators of the access funds to get the money that they will badly need if the student loans scheme is inflicted on them.
In Committee, the Minister did not deny that some students would be worse off. We should like to know how many thousands will be worse off because of the introduction of the scheme.
While talking about those students who will be worse off, there is some reference to the predicament of disabled students in amendment No. 1. There are other amendments that we will come to later that also deal with this subject. Disabled students have many additional costs, and the current allowance they can receive does not cover them. Some students have extra costs running into thousands of pounds a year, and disabled students will not usually he able to earn the sort of money, unfortunately, that able-bodied students can earn. Very often, they will be on the fringe of the level that triggers repayment of loans.
In Committee, the Minister intimated that this problem would be considered—the additional costs that disabled students incur and their disposable income in relation to the level at which repayment of loans is triggered off. We need a commitment from the Minister. Also in Committee, the Minister said that it was difficult to look at individual cases, that that was not usually done under the social security system. I hope that he will be able to tell us this evening about specific arrangements to take account of disabled students.
I hope that we will get good news tonight on both the issues that I have mentioned—students who lose heavily because of loss of housing benefit; and provisions for disabled students—and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In rising to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru as well as the Scottish National party. It will come as no surprise to the House that I particularly want to concentrate on new clause 17, because it contains aspects which affect Scotland.
Having listened to the debate, and not having had the privilege of other Members who were members of the Standing Committee, I believe that the strength of the argument that is emerging is for genuine consultation, and

a facility to monitor how this dreadful legislation will work, assuming that the House does not have the courage to vote down the Government's proposals.
I think that all Opposition Members and many Conservative Members would prefer this legislation to be dropped altogether. Then we could have a sensible debate about alternative student funding.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady has observed that, so far, only one Back-Bench Conservative Member has spoken to support the amendment and apparently no Conservative Member wishes to rise to oppose the amendments. Everyone who has spoken, on both sides of the House, appears to support them.

Mrs. Ewing: I think there is an element of collective embarrassment among Conservative Members about the proposed legislation and that that is why so few of them are here—although I see that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is present. When the first White Paper was debated, no member of the Scottish Conservative party was present.

Mr. Jackson: I want to place it on record that my hon. Friends are absent because they are anxious to assist everybody to make progress on this legislation.

Mrs. Ewing: That is one interpretation, and the hon. Gentleman has put it forward with great grace.

Mr. Allan Stewart: It is true that I was not present at that debate, but I have been a consistent supporter of a grant-loan system for 25 years, and I was a member of the Standing Committee and attended throughout.

Mrs. Ewing: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of any Standing Committee to which he is appointed, since I had the pleasure of serving opposite him on the Committee on the Education Reform Bill in the last Session of Parliament.
I return to the substance of my speech and to new clause 17. I believe that the review committee, as it is described, would provide a real mechanism to consider the issues affecting student support, in areas other than merely the pounds and the pence. We have a responsibility to look at how students are surviving, and we have to look at overall trends in society which affect students. Mention has already been made of the high cost of housing, which affects so many students, for example, in Edinburgh. We have a similar problem in Aberdeen—the oil capital of Europe.
Aberdeen university is used mainly by students from the highlands and islands and Grampian region, who have no alternative but to reside near the university. They cannot lead nine-to-five lives as people can at, for instance, Glasgow university, of which I am a graduate. Housing costs have imposed dreadful pressures on them over the past few years, and they now face the removal of housing benefit. It appears that students will be the only section of society to be denied access to the benefits system. Benefits relating to the short vacations have already been chopped, bit by bit; now other benefits are to be affected as well.
6 pm
A favourite phrase of the Government during debates on student support is "economic costs". They never look at the other side of the coin. Surely we should ensure that our funding for higher education represents a sound investment for the future. It is not merely an "economic


cost"; the benefits of the availability of highly skilled. highly trained and well educated people for the labour market are vital if Scotland—indeed, the United Kingdom as a whole—is to compete in the international community.
As has already been said, 77 per cent. of Scottish students take courses other than the basic three-year master of arts degree course, and many graduates with an ordinary MA return to university to try to achieve honours. In the 1960s and early 1970s, degree improvement courses were made available to many graduates, who could then return to the university of Strathclyde or Glasgow—or some other institution—to take an honours degree course over a two-year period of part-time study, while continuing in employment.
The four-year course is an important aspect of Scottish education. The Scottish Universities Rectors and Presidents Group has written to all Scottish Members, saying:
The Government has in particular still not answered the specific problem of Scottish students taking four-year as opposed to three-year courses.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that the Committee stage of the Bill failed to deal with any of its concerns. It is incumbent on the Government to tell us what will happen to students who choose to take a four-year course.
I am fed up with listening to the Secretary of State for Scotland reiterate that "nature, quality and content" are more significant factors in the choice of a course than is its length. The length of a course is an intrinsic consideration. How can the Secretary of State square the circle? The four-year course deserves our continuing support, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will give a clear undertaking in this regard.
The demographic trend in Scotland suggests that about 30 per cent. fewer people over 17 are going to apply for higher education. That makes it all the more important for those who do apply to have access to it. My main anxiety has always been that the loans system will reduce access for all kinds of students—mature students, women and ethnic minorities.
The Secretary of State will recall my speaking about my own socio-economic background. My father would not have encouraged me to take on a debt while studying at university: that was part of his philosophy, and it is still part of the philosophy of many other people in the poorer socio-economic sections of society. They will suffer most if the scheme is adopted.
It is clear that all Opposition Members support the new clauses and amendments, and I hope that Conservative Members will join us. The amendments will allow us to review the effect of the proposals annually, and, we hope, to remedy the problems.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have always been a strong supporter of the concept of student top-up loans, as I have told the president of the National Union of Students, her predecessor and all my students at successive court meetings in Lancaster, year after year. I said the same at my eve-of-poll meeting in Lancaster university at the time of the last election.
There is, however, a fly in the ointment—only a small fly, but it should be dealt with. The Bill provides for three access funds. I think that a fourth should be established for disabled students. That may prove technically difficult, but, difficult or not, it should be done. Disabled people do not have an easy life.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I support the new clauses and amendments that propose the establishment of an advisory committee on student loans which the Secretary of State must consult and to which he must report about the progress of the scheme before and after its implementation.
It is clear—not only from today's debate, but from the debate that has been raging in the press—that the matter has not been finally resolved. Surely it is in everyone's interests to establish a proper vehicle for dignified discussion and the refinement of the scheme to make it work as well as possible. Many of us fear that at present we have the worst of all possible worlds: the proposed system is complicated, messy and obscure, and we believe that it will prove cumbersome, unresponsive and very expensive.
We have been assured repeatedly that our fears are groundless. An advisory committee would be the right mechanism for monitoring developments: it could emerge with factual information, making it clear to Opposition Members—and some Conservatives—either that their fears are indeed groundless, or that severe problems exist.
Many aspects of current student financial provision leave considerable room for improvement, and the Bill does not begin to deal with some of them. The question of parental contribution has long been acknowledged as a source of great aggravation—not least because as many as 40 per cent. of students do not receive the full amount from their parents, but also because students aged 18 and over find themselves in a position of dependency that is not in keeping with their years and with the maturity expected of them. One of our main anxieties is that the scheme will not only fail to attract more students to higher education, but actually deter them. The Secretary of State would have nothing to fear from an advisory committee, which would establish the facts.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Lady make it clear whether her party is in favour of grants irrespective of parental income, or whether her preferred system would still contain an element of parental responsibility based on income?

Mrs. Barnes: My party has always been committed to the principle of a graduate tax, and that of a full grant for students with no parental contribution. Students who later, as graduates, earn more than the national average should repay part or all of that grant. I think that that would be a much fairer system.
The narrow catchment area of higher education from various income categories would be a vital issue for the advisory committee, as it concerns not only the young people themselves but the country's economic future. Unless we succeed in raising education standards—keeping on more pupils between the ages of 16 and 19, and encouraging and motivating as many as possible to proceed to higher education—we shall all suffer. That must be the benchmark test for any student finance scheme.
There must be certain benchmarks against which the system can be assessed. We should know, for example, whether it is fair, whether it is simple and straightforward to administer, whether it is affordable, whether it is sustainable, whether it maximises the number of students going into higher education, whether it ensures that there is a good cross-section of students, which is better than


now, whether it will attract more students from lower income groups, whether it attracts more women and whether it gives students the necessary independence and security during their study years. Those questions should be put to a body such as an advisory committee.
I regret that the Government have not further considered the option of a graduate tax, which would have many advantages and would remove many difficulties inherent in the proposed scheme. Students would have independence, and it would eliminate the problem of parental contribution. It would also result in a contribution being made back into the nation's education coffers. The SDP's proposal went partly towards a means-tested maintenance grant for 16 to 19-year-olds, to encourage those from low-income families to stay on in the education system and to be eligible for higher education.
As the Government seem committed to persevere with their proposal, in spite of consistent and pressurised hostility from all quarters, an advisory committee would at least be in a position to monitor the current and future situation to see whether promises for and predictions about the scheme have been fulfilled or have become a mockery.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate, not having had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that, in a sense, I support the idea of Opposition Members for an advisory committee, but I fear that I cannot support them, in view of the way in which the body is proposed in the new clause. Even so, the Secretary of State should consider establishing a monitoring system, and I shall explain why.
I shall support the principle of the Bill on Third Reading because, as I have argued on many occasions, the British higher education system cannot expand properly if we continue with a full maintenance grant system. That system has been geared to a narrow part of the population and particular types of courses. We need greater access to funds to assist all types of students on as wide a range of courses as possible, thereby encouraging youngsters to come into higher education.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman expressed reservations in previous debates on the Bill. The House will be surprised to hear that he is likely to vote for the measure on Third Reading because the academics, the opinions of whom he values and whose advice he takes, are still not persuaded of the merits of the scheme. The Government have not made any concessions to the concerns of the academics during the passage of the Bill. How does the hon. Gentleman explain his previous stance and his present declaration that he thinks that the Bill is now sufficiently well drafted for it to have his support? Nothing has changed.

Dr. Hampson: I am a born optimist who lives in hope. As I wrote in The Daily Telegraph a few days ago, I hope that the Secretary of State will, even at this stage, agree that there is a need, for practical if not for philosophical reasons, to give the matter a major rethink.

Mr. Hughes: So why vote for it?

Dr. Hampson: I have no objection to an enabling Bill saying that British higher education should have some form of loan scheme, because I believe that it should. That

is why I am being logical in supporting the Bill, even though I join Opposition Members in the request that they are making.
I received a letter dated Tuesday 13 February from a student officer, saying:
As a member of the Labour Party … I thank you for your contribution to the debate, sir"—
referring to my article in The Daily Telegraph student supplement—
which is much appreciated: hopefully this can be a cross-party issue.
I argued in that article that the Labour party has a long history of examining the issue, for understandable and honest reasons. The main one is that there are many low-paid families and pensioners contributing through tax to the increasing benefits of children from already well-off families with considerable incomes, who gain grant aid, and therefore improved life opportunities, whereas many families paying for that through tax do not benefit—arid neither do their children—from higher education.
The Labour party has, reasonably, looked at the issue from that standpoint, and Lord Peston, who speaks for the Labour party in the other place, will no doubt feel obliged to point that out when the Bill is in that House. He is one of the most eloquent spokesmen dealing with that aspect of the argument.
6.15 pm
A visible process of monitoring would be an asset to the scheme. After all, Departments can get locked into ideas. I had the privilege of looking at some of the documentation in the Department in 1981–82. It is extraordinary to note the way in which both the argument and proposals today compare with what existed at that time.
Equally, Ministers determine new priorities as they come and go. There is no reason to assume that the imaginative approach needed to maintain a flexible system will be available in the Department. I should rather that it came from outside with outside experts and specialists always looking at the scheme, commissioning research elsewhere and so on, reviewing what is happening in the world and feeding that information into the system for the benefit of Ministers.
I believe that there will come a time when Ministers in the Department of Education and Science will need support as they argue with the Treasury, and it would be useful to have an external, independent body putting publicly the case why certain changes should be made or extra resources provided. That is why the Treasury—and hence the Government—is against any such body, for the nature of such bodies is that they tend always to call for change and increased resources.
Despite all that, I believe that, in the terms of the Bill and the way in which the scheme has been presented, we are seeking a flexible scheme. I give credit to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors for framing a measure that will not lock us into a rigid approach from which it will be hard to move out, to expand and to develop. Even so, it would help to have an instrument to look at certain aspects.
A letter from the National Union of Students says:
We are fearful that students may be particularly deterred from attending vocational courses which lead to relatively poorly paid professions.


That is an important point. It is also a reason why we need a body with the ability to look at what is happening and to find out whether what is required is reflected in the results.
One of the most important routes to vocational qualifications is the part-time route, and many of us have campaigned for years for further incentives in higher education to enable students to go part time. Such people are, as it were, victims of the narrowing discretionary grants scheme, and that is an argument that I have always put against the mandatory grants scheme because the scheme is limited to full-time rather than part-time students.
Schedule 1(4) says that people will be eligible for loans if they are on higher national certificates. In my experience, the definition of the HNC is that it is part time. Are we, in the drafting of that schedule, allowing, and positively putting an incentive on, students taking HNCs because that way they can get a loan for part-time study, and not university part-time courses?
The balance of the grant and the loan needs to be examined by a monitoring body—[Interruption.] I know that certain Opposition Members are anxious to take part in the debate. Because 10 or 12 of them rose to speak when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) sat down, I thought it ridiculous that there should be such an imbalance in the debate, and I rose to speak. Conservative Members have a contribution to make to the debate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about what the ultimate balance should be between the grant and the loan. In the light of the arguments about disincentives, we need to examine whether there is a disincentive because we are moving from a totally generous system to a less generous system. That is a perfectly valid argument because nowhere in the world has there been a change from a universal grant system to a part-time, half-and-half system. We need to examine that closely because we may then decide to follow the American pattern. I have always advocated a basic higher education opportunity grant so that families with an income of half the national average would be entitled to a 100 per cent. grant. Surely we should encourage more young people from relatively badly off families to enter higher education, although we may have to make commensurate adjustments at the top of the scale. That is a major argument for having an independent monitoring body to consider that.
We may need to have a body to advise the Government that additional loan schemes are necessary and available. We should not be locked into thinking that the half-and-half top-up system is the only type of loan. Alongside that we could run other loan schemes. We could develop the career development loan scheme which is currently operated by the Department of Employment, so that we could tap the banks' money. The Department of Employment runs a scheme in which students can borrow between £300 and £5,000 for a course lasting from a month to a year. That is ideal for mature students and the concept of continuing education. The Department of Education and Science should be part of the process, in which the Government could help by subsidising the interest rate, but the commercial banks would take the decisions, looking at people who were probably already in work and who had great prospects. Barclays bank, Clydesdale bank and the Co-operative bank are already part of the present scheme. They make commercial judgments to take on

students. The Government give assistance on interest rates, but the repayment becomes the responsibility of the student when he or she returns to work.
It would be helpful to have a body to advise the Government on suitable alternative schemes. Why must we always assume that wisdom resides only in the hands and minds of officials in Departments of State? That is a particularly valid reason why we should consider that proposal.
Finally, if the scheme is to be publicly acceptable, the repayments must be fair, so the process of deferrals must be as flexible as possible. The ultimate way of achieving the necessary flexibility would be for the Inland Revenue's computer system to code the scheme, so that repayments could genuinely be geared to income and means and circumstances. Failing that, it will be fundamental to ensure that the deferral and repayment scheme is appropriate to the circumstances of the student. That is a conclusive reason why there has to be an independent monitoring body, even if it is not as stipulated in the new clause. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends seriously to find an alternative that fits the requirements.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate because before coming to the House I was a senior lecturer at the Welsh Agricultural college and was in daily contact with students who had many problems and came from many different backgrounds. The amendments seek to highlight the lack of consultation with interested bodies over the introduction of the Bill and to ensure that the scheme is reviewed by review committees in the future. That is a perfectly reasonable objective.
Many institutions of higher education in Wales are particularly concerned that the Government are asking them to administer a scheme with which they do not agree. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has made it clear that it favours an entirely different scheme. I certainly commend the principles of the alternative scheme. It proposes adequate, certain, simple and socially just measures to achieve fairness for students. The alternative scheme would ensure that all eligible students were entitled to an adequately funded maintenance grant, that grants would not be assessed against parental income nor means-tested and that they should take account of regional differences. Those are worthy objectives that the Government should take into account.
The Government should be obliged to enter into joint agreements with institutions over arrangements for administering the scheme. For example, Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations on the football ID card scheme belatedly changed the Government's mind quite radically. If such consultation and investigation went into this Bill, perhaps we would not be discussing such measures this evening.
Many people in Wales doubt whether the loans scheme will increase the number of people attending higher education institutions. It is much more likely to diminish the numbers, so I am surprised that the Minister will not accept the need for annual reports to evaluate the success—or more likely the failure—of the scheme. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that as I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Committee. What is the Minister afraid of?
Access to higher education in Wales will undoubtedly be reduced. People in Wales have the lowest disposable


incomes in mainland Britain. The University College of Wales was started with the pennies of people who were not wealthy enough to invest in their education system except on a very wide franchise. We are proud of what has been achieved in Wales which has provided access to higher education to students from very modest backgrounds. In 1979 students from classes 3M, 4 and 5 represented 23 per cent. of students, but by 1988 the figure had dropped to 19·9 per cent. The fear is that that percentage will fall still further on the introduction of a loan scheme.
I am also concerned that before student loans are introduced we should have the opportunity fully to discuss the scheme. The Bill is extremely thin. I expect the regulations eventually to be much thicker. The Government have shied away from fully discussing the details and it would be particularly helpful if an advisory body could consider the regulations before they were brought to the House for approval. That is proposed in the amendments.
The Government take the attitude that they have a monopoly of all wisdom, but that is impossible. Amendment No. 13 provides for consultation before and after the regulations are made. I expect the impact of the loan scheme on Welsh institutions to be significant. This week's publication of the Public Accounts Committee report on financial problems at universities mentions the crisis at Cardiff university—the administrative problems there were frankly unacceptable—but none the less highlights the great pressures on higher education. The introduction of loans lingers like another dark cloud over the future of higher education in Wales. There must be advisory bodies for Wales, Scotland and England.
Welsh people, Welsh institutions and students in Wales will not welcome this Bill. It will not increase the numbers of students entering our institutions. In fact, it will be a deterrent, not an incentive. As I said, I am a former lecturer. I participated in a committee that dealt with hardship cases among students in the college in which I lectured. The hardship occurred because of the present Government's erosion of grants. Some students were in great financial difficulty.
The Government could put matters right by restoring grants to the levels that prevailed before they came into office. They should be prepared to consult people at the coal-face—lecturers and teachers. They are the people who know what is happening. The students themselves—who suffer from week to week, month to month, and year to year—should also be consulted. It ill behoves Ministers, who themselves benefited considerably from grants, to force future students to start their careers in debt as a result of this top-up loans scheme.

Mr. MacGregor: The student loans scheme will provide additional resources for students, and good value for money for the taxpayer. Over time, it will reduce the burden, on both taxpayers and parents, of making provision for students' living costs. There will be no burdensome bureaucracy. The Student Loans Company will be firmly cost-effective. The repayment regime will mirror the best commercial practice. Students will benefit; parents will benefit; taxpayers will benefit. Those benefits, if Parliament approves the Bill, will start in the autumn of this year. The new source of funding about which we are talking today will make it possible, in the medium term, to

relieve the burden on taxpayers of students' living costs; to reduce the parental contribution, in real terms, in 1991–92; and to provide substantial additional resources to students this autumn. It is as well to remind ourselves that that is what this Bill is about.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in introducing the new clause, produced a series of very thin arguments. It was a retread of tired, worn-out old tubes. That was a feature of debates in Committee too.

Mr. Straw: How does the Secretary of State know?

Mr. MacGregor: Because I have read pretty well every word. I have read nearly all the debates, so I know.
The Opposition have made no impact and have lost the intellectual argument throughout. That is a great credit to my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate—in particular, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who, I thought, came through the debate with intellectual distinction and great good humour.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to recent developments—developments that have taken place since the Bill was last debated in this Chamber. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, rapid progress is being made on preparatory work for the student loans scheme. Subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill, we are well on course to providing the extra resources for students this autumn. The Student Loans Company, based in Glasgow, is making good preparatory progress. As I made clear to the House just before Christmas the position with the banks was that we were asking them to be our agents for the administration of part of the scheme and, in the course of doing so, to assist by looking after the Student Loans Company. I challenge anyone to say how the Bill has been altered to any substantial degree as a result of its progress through the Committee or because of the change in relation to the banks. The Student Loans Company is proceeding exactly as was originally intended. It is making progress. It is doing so without the banks but by getting banking expertise.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the failure to amend the Bill following the change in the nature of the student loans scheme show that there was something fundamentally wrong with it? It was subject to any range of possibilities arising from the introduction of any type of scheme. We do not yet know what type of scheme will be introduced. There should have been no attempt to put an enabling measure on the statute book.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in Committee well over 100 amendments were tabled. It was not really a thin Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How many amendments got through?

Mr. MacGregor: What happened in Committee is a common feature of Committee stage debates on other Bills—my hon. Friends won the argument.
The point has been made today—it has been made time and time again—that we should watch how the scheme is progressing and be prepared to make changes if monitoring and review suggest that changes are necessary. The advantage of the way in which we are proceeding is that we can make the changes year by year, as in the case of student grants, without the need to introduce primary legislation. I have not got anywhere nearly into my


argument, but I have to say that those who ask for monitoring and review must accept that a Bill of this type is what they desire. The fact that they ask for monitoring suggests that they will want changes in the scheme from time to time. It would be impossible to make changes from time to time if every change had to be the subject of primary legislation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because the Bill is so flexible, he would be able to bring in a fourth access fund for disabled students if this could be worked out?

Mr. MacGregor: If at some future time something like that were thought desirable, it would be possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State has made the most convincing argument that anybody can yet have heard for acceptance of the amendments. This, he says, is a Bill—so flexible and adaptable—about which he is waiting to receive advice. Presumably, therefore, he could, for the first time, say quickly to the House, "I accept the amendments and will show flexibility." Then we could conclude this debate.

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that I have made a convincing argument for the Bill. I hope that he will accept that that is what I have been saying. I will come in due course to the amendments themselves. I was demonstrating what progress had been made—a matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I want to show what good progress we have been making.
The managing director of the Student Loans Company is at his desk. So, too, is the finance and administration director. The loans administration director has been appointed, and further recruitment is going ahead quickly. Premises have been acquired, and fitting-out arrangements are in hand. Work is proceeding smoothly on the complex computer systems required by the company. There have been developments since the Bill was given its Second Reading, and the progress is just as we envisaged.
In terms of monitoring, which has featured a lot in this debate, we shall keep Parliament fully informed of the preparatory work, including revised estimates of administrative costs, as it develops. As we said, current indications confirm that annual running costs will be within the range of £10 million to £20 million, which is far less than some critics have supposed. I will come in a moment to the question of monitoring the future.
This week we published an information leaflet on loans. This is a matter to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred. Let me explain why we published the leaflet this week. First, the leaflet, in two places, states very clearly:
Introduction of the scheme depends on Parliament's approval of the Education and Student Loans Bill … The provisions of the Bill are open to amendment in Parliament.
Why did we produce that leaflet? There are two reasons. The first is that in Committee there were many requests for a leaflet. The people who made such requests included Opposition Members. We responded to that request. The second reason is that university students, young people hoping to go to university in the autumn and their careers advisers and teachers have been asking for information about what the scheme will contain if the Bill is approved by Parliament. It must be to the advantage of students and

potential students to know what to expect. I make no apology for the leaflet; it is what many people have demanded, and I think that we were right to provide it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If, after the debate, the collective wisdom of Parliament is that these amendments should be passed, what will happen to this leaflet? Will a correction slip have to be inserted?

Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that the leaflet, at a very early stage, says that the provisions of the Bill are subject to amendment in Parliament. It goes on:
Some features of the scheme described below may consequently change.
In that event, we would amend the leaflet. There would be nothing unusual about that.
Costings have been mentioned frequently in the debate. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to it as the pounds and the pence. There are one or two things that are worth repeating on the whole question of costings. First, we are discussing the introduction of a loan plus grant facility, which next year will be worth 25 per cent. more than the grant this year. That is why I claim that it will benefit students.
In the next academic year, we expect to provide £178 million in loans on top of the updated grant. It will be more if take-up of the loan exceeds 80 per cent., and in addition there is £15 million for access funds. Those are extra resources.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: How much will the Government save by excluding students from access to housing benefit and other benefits?

Mr. MacGregor: We estimate that students who qualify for loans would have been able to claim some £68 million in benefit, but £125 million next year is a substantial net increase in public support for the living costs of students.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. MacGregor: There is much desire to make progress. Several Conservative Members who wanted to speak in support of the Bill have agreed not to so that we can make progress.
The most vulnerable groups—disabled and single-parent students—will retain benefits and will also have access to loans.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast sum being provided by the Government will remove the need for parents to give additional money to students? That is good news for parents.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. Disabled and single-parent students will retain benefits and have access to loans. Many students whose parents have not been fully topping up maintenance grants will gain benefit, and our proposals offer an advantage to students who have taken out commercial loans.
For the 35 per cent. of students who claim no benefits, the loan will be a net increase. On average, it will provide a substantial net increase for those who claim benefit. Those whose benefit losses are greater than the loan facility are strong candidates for further support from their institution's access funds. There will clearly be a positive benefit for students next year.
Providing additional resources through loans will cost more in the immediate future. More resources for students are necessary because we are keen to continue the


expansion in the numbers in higher education that has been achieved under this Government. Providing the same addition as grant, rather than grant plus loan—this questions the position of the Opposition or any of our critics—would be more expensive because take-up would be 100 per cent. That would be a dead-weight cost, as it would go not to those wanting to make use of the loan facility but to all. Instead of costing £178 million, if take-up was 80 per cent., in 1990–91 grants would cost £222 million. Grants would clearly be more expensive from the outset. In later years, when the loan scheme will generate savings, that extra cost would continue. An additional amount would be forgone in later years——

Mr. Worthington: The Secretary of State does not believe this.

Mr. MacGregor: I do, and it is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to refute it. It is clear that that would be the case if the resources were provided in grant.

Mr. Worthington: rose——

Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my point.
In later years, the position will be more beneficial to the taxpayer, because the loans will have been repaid. We calculate that if grant were being paid the amount that would be forgone would be almost £100 million in 1994 and well over that figure by 1995. The combination of our proposals rather than a grant scheme——

Mr. Straw: So what?

Mr. MacGregor: I will tell the hon. Gentleman "so what." He argued that repayments would not exceed benefit beyond the year 2000, but he was on the wrong point. Throughout the 1990s, our scheme will be more beneficial to the taxpayer than a grant scheme at the levels we are proposing.

Mr. Worthington: If my banker lends me £10,000 instead of £5,000, it never occurs to either of us that he is being more generous, but that is the logic of the Secretary of State's argument.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Opposition Members argue that our scheme will be more expensive to the taxpayer. I hope that tomorrow the hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I said and consider whether I am wrong.
6.45 pm
A comparison between a total grant scheme and our grant plus loan scheme clearly shows that our proposals will be less expensive to the taxpayer, and will become increasingly less expensive as loans are repaid.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Blackburn said "so what". Here is the "so what". What is the Labour party's alternative? I understand from his reaction that its alternative is not a grant scheme at the level of resources that we propose for next year. It hopes that the grant element will gradually be increased "as resources allow". That is not a pledge, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said:
What we are promising is an increase for pensioners and an increase in child benefit. Everything else that is regarded as a desirable aim is also listed, quite clearly and specifically, as something that we hope to do as resources allow." [Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 179.]

It has become not something "we will do" but something "we hope to do". It is quite clear that Labour's alternative is less beneficial to students and will continue to be so. That is an important element of the debate and shows why the Labour party was so vulnerable in Committee.

Mr. Straw: It is clear that the Secretary of State is being indiscriminately profligate with taxpayers' money and doing what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) explained to him—shifting money from those who need it most to those who need it least. The reason why the loan scheme becomes less popular every time the Secretary of State makes a speech on it is that every student understands the iniquity and unfairness of it. Out policy is to target money where it is most needed. The Secretary of State will confirm that the combination of freezing the real value of grant and abolishing housing benefit and income support takes money immediately from those students most in need.

Mr. MacGregor: Next year, the majority of students who have been claiming benefit will be better off under our proposals than under those of the Labour party. The House will note that the hon. Gentleman's remarks confirm that.
New clause 2 and amendment No. 1 propose an advisory committee to oversee the operation of the scheme. That would be an unwieldy bureaucratic structure. The committee would be as big as the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, but bigger than the National Curriculum Council. That would be rather large for an advisory committee that has no powers. I note that there is no similar advisory body for student grants.
I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill already gives the Secretary of State power to call for reports on the working of the arrangements. We have made it clear in Committee and in a number of ways that we shall be monitoring the scheme. The Select Committee already exists to examine departmental policy and produce reports on it, so there is no need for an advisory body either as a monitoring facility or to ensure that Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the performance of and changes to the scheme.
We expect to make available to Parliament information arising from the Department's monitoring, for example, in future income and expenditure surveys and in other ways. So Parliament will have no lack of information. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that we shall be monitoring the scheme. When new regulations are presented to Parliament, it will have an opportunity to scrutinise them and to make suggestions for future regulations. And, in the normal course of parliamentary procedure, there will be many other ways in which, with the information provided to it by us, Parliament will be able to probe and monitor the scheme
We have already said in Committee that the Government will make the Student Loans Company's. annual report available to Parliament, and it will be possible to debate that as well as the regulations required to make changes. The annual accounts of the Student Loans Company, as a limited company, will be required to be audited under the provisions of the Companies Acts and a copy lodged with the Registrar of Companies.


Above all, the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for expenditure on the loan scheme, as for any other expenditure on education, in all the normal ways.
So—and I say this in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)—there will be ample opportunity for consultation and monitoring in a variety of ways. I assure him that I have already had many discussions with a wide range of vice-chancellors about the operation of the scheme and the alternative that they put forward.
The same arguments as I have just advanced apply, of course, to new clause 17, which proposes a parallel advisory committee for Scotland. I do not think that I need to say much more about that.

Mr.Worthington: >Absolutely typical.

Mr. MacGregor: There is only one difference between new clause 2 and new clause 17, which are pretty well the same in most other respects. The one difference is that it is proposed that the Scottish body, for fewer higher education institutions, should have more members. Their purposes are the same, so I think the arguments are the same, and I do not propose to repeat them.

Mr. Worthington: There is no Scottish Select Committee for a start, which is a bit of a handicap. The Minister still does not seem to have accepted that there is a separate Scottish education system which is not being defended by the Secretary of State for Scotland and was not taken into account at all in setting up the loan scheme.

Mr. MacGregor: All that I am saying is that the arguments against setting up a wider advisory body as proposed in new clause 2 are exactly the same as those against new clause 17.
New clause 14 requires consultation with higher education institutions in their role as certifying their students' eligibility for loans. I believe that this amendment is unnecessary, for the following reasons. First, I am looking forward to the detailed discussions—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and about which he was right—with the higher education sector about the institutions' role in assessing their students' eligibility for loans. I intend to embark on those discussions very soon.
Secondly, the power to make regulations requiring certification of eligibility is a reserve power. I expect not to need to use it, because I think that institutions will be keen to play their part in ensuring that their students have access to this additional resource. But if it proves necessary to make regulations, I undertake that we shall consult the institutions before doing so.
I believe that new clause 14 is unnecessary, and similar arguments apply to amendment No. 13.
Much has been said in the debate about consultation. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in particular, referred to this when he was talking about the need for further consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and discussion of its scheme. Incidentally, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman accepts our position on the national insurance contribution and that he agrees, if not with all the nine good reasons, at least with the conclusion to which they lead me:that that is not a sensible alternative. I am very glad to have his support on that point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree, I think, with all nine points. Will the Secretary of State look seriously at the alternative proposal put forward by the vice-chancellors and principals? They are almost unanimous in thinking that it is better than the Government's scheme. It would not be too late for the Secretary of State to take their advice, and we would end up with something much more widely acceptable than his present proposals.

Mr. MacGregor: I have looked very seriously at that and I think it right to tell the House, because other hon. Members have raised the point, why I do not believe that that scheme is anything like as attractive as ours. It has one benefit. I am glad to have the demonstration from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of its support for our view that, on principle, beneficiaries of higher education should contribute to its cost. It is very important that, in putting forward its alternative, the committee has accepted that principle, which underlies the students loan scheme. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that he is not in favour of a graduate tax, and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) said that her party is. It is effectively a graduate tax that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has put forward. In fairness to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I must put the following points.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals said in a statement some time ago that public support for students' living costs must meet four criteria: adequacy, certainty, simplicity and social justice. It is worth comparing briefly how its proposals and the Government's meet those criteria. I hope that, in so doing, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at this and have been discussing it.
On adequacy, the Government propose a grant plus loan next year worth 25 per cent. more than the grant this year. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals does not suggest an amount, but as it would remove the parental contribution, the taxpayer would have to find £390 million extra to replace that before any addition to the value of the grant could be contemplated. The vice-chancellors must realise that the taxpayers' pocket is not bottomless. In terms of adequacy, there is a real problem for them to face.
On certainty, the committee would have the graduates pay an additional tax levy; it does not say at what rate or for what period. Even if those figures were fixed, the levy would depend on how much the graduate earned, but it would not be fixed in advance, so there would be total uncertainty for the graduate embarking on a university career as to what commitment he was taking on, because he would not know what he would have to repay.
As for the loan, the undergraduate has control of what commitment he takes on. With the Government's scheme, the student will know how much he can borrow and that he will have to pay back the same amount, indexed for inflation. Moreover, the levy proposed by the committee is not related to any support received by the student. So someone contemplating higher education would have no idea what commitment he was taking on. This is a crucial point about the graduate tax—the unfairness of asking students to pay a specific and special tax irrespective of whether they receive taxpayer support for their living costs while at university, and ignoring the fact that they may


have paid themselves for all their living costs during university. In addition to the uncertainty, there is a fundamental unfairness in the committee's proposal.
On simplicity, I believe that our scheme is simple. From the borrower's point of view, the loan administration would be very simple—like normal commercial credit but with more safeguards.
Finally. on social justice, by removing the parental contribution the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals would require taxpayers, many of them earning less than graduates or their parents, to shoulder the burden in place of students' parents in higher income brackets. Moreover, the levy would be based on income tax, which would be an incentive to emigrate. Clearly, those who emigrated would not have to repay the loan whereas we should seek for loans to be repaid. It would also bite on graduates who obtained their degrees abroad, those who obtained degrees before the start of the scheme or those who received no public support. If it did not do so, it would have to be an extremely complex scheme and thus would lose its simplicity.
On all the tests that the committee put forward, our scheme scores more highly. I hope that I have demonstrated that we have been consulting, examining, considering and reaching conclusions. It is right for the Government to have done so.
7 pm
It is clear that the Government scheme provides more money for students this autumn, relief for parents in 1991 and a reduced burden on taxpayers in the medium term. As we shall be monitoring and reporting to Parliament. the new clauses and amendments are unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 248.

Division No. 76]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beggs, Roy
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Fearn, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flannery, Martin


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael





Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grocott, Bruce
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hardy, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Geraint
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Janner, Greville
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfedder, James
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lamond, James
Short, Clare


Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, Jim


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stott, Roger


McCrea, Rev William
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McGrady, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Maclennan, Robert
Wall, Pat


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wareing, Robert N.


Mallon, Seamus
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Frank Haynes, and Mr. John Battle.


Moonie, Dr Lewis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John






Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hill, James


Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butler, Chris
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Janman, Tim


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Farr, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maples, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marlow, Tony


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Mellor, David


French, Douglas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fry, Peter
Miller, Sir Hal


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gregory, Conal
Oppenheim, Phillip





Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shelton, Sir William
Warren, Kenneth


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Question accordingly negatived

New clause 4

STUDENT LOANS COMPANY

'.—(1) The Student Loans Company shall be a company limited by guarantee.

(2) No sale or transfer of the assets of the Student Loans Company shall be made without prior approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 5

POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF STUDENT LOANS COMPANY

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations which shall govern the discharge of functions by, and regulate the finances of, the Student Loans Company.

(2) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) above shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

New clause 12

THE STUDENT LOANS COMPANY

'—(1) The arrangements for enabling students to receive loans towards their maintenance shall be carried out by the Student Loans Company ("the SLC").

(2) The SLC shall be a company limited by guarantee.

(3) The SLC shall be required to ensure that all data stored in relation to a borrower's liability is kept in accordance with principles laid out on Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1984.

(4) The SLC shall be prohibited from selling, lending, hiring or reproducing information relating to individual borrowers' liability to a third party.'.

Mr. Smith: In speaking to new clauses 4 and 5, I wish to make it clear that we support also new clause 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I stress that, in tabling the new clauses, we in no way show acceptance of the student loans scheme. I say that because, in Committee, a similar clause was interpreted in that way by the Conservatives. We reject the scheme totally, as do the Conservative students in Oxford who, according to the Cherwell newspaper, have split the university Conservative association and propose to run separate candidates in the student union elections in Oxford on a platform of opposition to student loans and to the poll tax.
According to Cherwell, an election candidate said:
How could they"—
that is, the Conservative party—
expect us to run on a platform supporting student loans, payment of the community charge by students and voluntary membership of the NUS? All of these we fundamentally oppose.
It is clear that nobody supports the student loans scheme apart from the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State. We reject wholly the unjust and wasteful bureaucratic nonsense of the scheme and would, of course, have no student loans company.
7.15 pm
If there is to be a student loans company, it should be dedicated to the service of students, and it should be accountable. It should not become a plaything of the financial markets, where profit maximisation for shareholders would come first and students second, and where the information held on individuals would be vulnerable. The unscrupulous might be tempted to make a quick buck out of selling, or otherwise using commercially, the profiles collected as part of the operation of the student loans company.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should not disappoint his public. Everyone thought that he was a member of the new look Labour party which did not look with disfavour on profits.

Mr. Smith: Making profits out of education is one thing which we totally and utterly reject. A fundamental objection to the whole Bill, shared by most of the public, is that the student loans scheme is the thin end of a very nasty wedge. which would make education the privilege of the few on ability to pay, and not the right of all on ability to benefit.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual courteous manner. During the debates in Commitee, the hon. Gentleman was most violent in his regret at the withdrawal of the banks. The banks were in it for profit. How can he reconcile the two? The hon. Gentleman says that profit made by the banks is all right but profit made by a private company is wrong. It is difficult to square that circle.

Mr. Smith: The scheme changed fundamentally with the withdrawal of the banks. The Secretary of State and the Minister pretend otherwise, but there was a fundamental change, sufficiently important to cause the Prime Minister to "fizz with fury", no less. The formation of a student loans company must be the first instance of

nationalisation before a company has done anything. Now the Government, having nationalised it, want to privatise it well before it has done anything.
It is precisely because of the scope of privatisation and the commitment of the Government to hive the company off into the private sector at the earliest opportunity that these new clauses are particularly important. They relate to the status and operation of the Student Loans Company, which has become a very different beast during the deliberations in Committee, following the withdrawal of the banks.
I will summarise what the new clauses would do. New clause 4 proposes that the Student Loans Company would be limited by guarantee and should not be sold or otherwise transferred without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the functioning and the finances of the Student Loans Company, and would require those regulations to be subject to parliamentary approval. New clause 12 would add the requirement that information was stored and handled in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984 and that information on a borrower's liability should not be sold or otherwise passed on to third parties.
Taken together, the new clauses would write the existence of the Student Loans Company into the Bill and provide it with a legal status conducive to service rather than commercial exploitation. They would ensure that changes in the status and mode of operation of the Company would be controlled where they should be controlled—in Parliament. They would provide essential protection for civil liberties, which are not safeguarded by the cavalier attitude of Ministers to the ownership of the Student Loans Company and its commercial exploitation.
There has been much criticism of the way in which this waif and stray of a Bill operates solely in an enabling fashion. It is incredible, as well as irresponsible, that the Bill makes no reference to the Student Loans Company, the principal vehicle by which the scheme will be administered. Over the years, files will he built up on hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of individuals. Outside national insurance, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, it will be one of the largest centralised registers of information on individuals.
It is wholly wrong that the Government should deny Parliament the opportunity to determine the status and mode of operation of the company holding that information. I shall return to the important implications for civil liberties in a moment, but first I press the Government to supply what the Minister was unable to supply in Committee—meaningful information on the administration of the scheme.
The £450,000 Price Waterhouse feasibility study on the student loans scheme, and the Under-Secretary in. Committee on 18 January, said that it would cost £15 million to £20 million a year to administer the scheme by 1995. That is based on exactly the same forecast as Price Waterhouse applied to the operation of the company by the banks.
Since then, the Government have published revised public expenditure figures for the total cost of the student loans scheme. They suggested an outlay of £563 million of taxpayers' money in the three years to which the public expenditure White Paper applies. It is worth pointing out that that £563 million of new expenditure of taxpayers' money is £78 million more than the sum earmarked for


capital investment in the universities, which desperately need equipment for labs, books for libraries and investment in computing facilities. It is £235 million more than the amount allocated over that period for the school buildings grant, and £269 million more than the total capital investment earmarked for our polytechnics.
I do not want to repeat the points already made in the debate, but the expenditure on loans is wasteful and it is not targeted to help the students who need it most. Nor will it provide assistance for those seeking access to our higher education system, who are presently denied opportunities that should be available to all.
All the Government's costings, such as they are, are based on no expansion of student numbers beyond the year 2000. For that reason, the Government have backed away from the commitment made by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), to double participation. The Student Loans Company and the money spent on it will be a further barrier to access to educational opportunity, at a time when we should be opening up avenues of access to higher education, rather than putting problems in people's way.
It is no good the Government making professions of good will on the important matter of civil liberties and leaving it at that. Students, the public and Parliament have a right to know exactly what protection will be available. Given the Government's evident enthusiasm for selling off the Student Loans Company, serious questions must be asked about the uses to which the data could be put. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said:
the Students Loans Company will have considerable potential as the basis for a banking business."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 January 1990; c. 398.]
It is also significant that, earlier this evening, the Secretary of State said that the repayment regime would reflect commercial practice. Previously, the Under-Secretary of State said that there was no problem about privatising the Student Loans Company. Indeed, he cited the chief executive's debt collecting credentials. I do not know whether those credentials extend to wandering through the Amazonian rain forest or elsewhere overseas to collect the outstanding debts of those who have gone abroad, as it was suggested earlier that he would have to do. There are serious worries that the debt collection power and the information held on individuals will simply be sold off into the private sector without the safeguards which the amendments and new clauses offer.
Privatisation has enormous potential commercial possibilities. Present practices, and even the Data Protection Act 1984, do not afford the safeguards which many members of the public, and perhaps hon. Members and even Ministers, might assume exist. An interesting article in The Times on 5 February speculated on whether the sale of the Student Loans Company might be illegal:
Mr. Rodney Austin, a senior lecturer in law at University College London, said that under the Data Protection Act it would be unlawful for firms to use for other purposes information gathered to administer loans. He added that companies could make use of the profiles held by the student loans company only if students gave their permission.
No one would be more delighted than me if the proposed sale of the Student Loans Company was scuppered in that way. If it is sold, the qualifications which would have to be put on the protection afforded by the Data Protection Act

would be considerable and would give rise to enormous anxieties. That is what makes the final part of new clause 12 so important.
To use the student loans files on individuals as, for example, a mailing list would require only the passive assent of the people involved. A piece of small print asking them to let the company know if they objected would suffice. If people did not object, all sorts of target mailing would be likely to arrive through people's doors, which would bear as much relationship to student loans as the bumf sent out by the AA has to rescuing its members when their car breaks down. Such mail would deluge through graduates' letter boxes. The Student Loans Company could, at the least, offer further loans or even credit card arrangements. Would that be inconsistent with the original purpose for which the company was set up?

Mr. Jackson: What is wrong with all that?

Mr. Smith: I hear the Under-Secretary say from a sedentary position, "What is wrong with all that?" What is wrong with it is that files on individuals would be passed into the commercial domain for exploitation for profit by a company holding private information on people. In the banking context it would breach the fundamental rules of banking to circulate that information. That is a gross threat to and infringement of civil liberties.

Mr. Jackson: Nonsense.

Mr. Smith: The Under-Secretary mutters, "Nonsense". That will do nothing to reassure people outside the House who are worried about the inadequacy of the protection that the Government are prepared to provide.
What is more, there would be nothing to stop a privatised Student Loans Company offering inducements, perhaps discounts on loan repayments, in return for assent to use the files for other purposes. Once that rubicon was crossed, the commercial potential for selling the list indiscriminately would be enormous. We can all imagine just how interested life assurance companies and pension companies would be in acquiring that information. Once assent had been given, that information on individuals would be up for sale. The pressures that might be put on people to allow such information to be used in that way are worrying and are a real threat to civil liberties.
Will the Minister give us an assurance now that, under his proposals, such use would not and could not be made of that information? If he cannot give such an assurance now, and if he does not give it during his speech, I strongly urge him to think about the new clauses again and to accept them when the Bill passes to the other place for consideration because these new clauses alone can safeguard the public interest, and parliamentary accountability, and can protect the civil liberties of those about whom files will be built up by the Student Loans Company.
7.30 pm
This afternoon I attended and spoke at a large rally in Hyde Park at which between 25,000 and 30,000 students were gathered in opposition to the student loan scheme, the Student Loans Company and the whole philosophy behind the legislation. Reference has already been made to the considerable and widening lead that our party holds in the opinion polls. The whole philosophy of the legislation


represents the thin edge of the wedge in making education dependent on ability to pay rather than on ability to benefit from it.
The people of this country reject that principle and want education to be available to all. They also want all those who can benefit from that education to be properly supported in it. The support that those views enjoy and the support for the protection of civil liberties, as set out in our new clauses, is just one of the many factors that will ensure our victory at the next election, as will our ability to repeal this invidious student loan scheme and to introduce a decent and fair system of support.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The amendments go directly to the heart of the Government's difficulties and embarrassment over the Bill. They draw attention to the Government's embarrassment not so many months ago, when the high street banks pulled out of the system that the Government are trying to set up and forced the Government into taking over the Student Loans Company and administering it by way of a nationalised institution.
Having said that, I wish to address my remarks chiefly to the amendment on civil liberties that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I very much welcome the support of the Labour Front Bench for our civil liberties amendment and reciprocate by stressing our support for new clauses 4 and 5, which were tabled by the Labour party.
The purpose of this series of new clauses is to establish as part of the Bill that the Student Loans Company shall exist, to define its role and function, to ensure that it has accountability to this House and, finally, to ensure that information kept by the Student Loans Company is not traded or stored in breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1984.
The first peculiarity of the Bill, and one of the reasons for the new clauses, is the fact that the Government are seeking to enable themselves to do something about which they cannot give the House any detail and about which they cannot write any detail into the Bill. Indeed, I do not believe that they have any detail yet. In the circumstances that the Government now face, at the very least the Student Loans Company should appear on the face of the Bill—as is suggested in new clause 4—because that is how the Government state that they will operate the system and run the scheme. The actions of that company, whether they he the sale or transfer of its assets, should not occur without the prior approval of the House.
My view is that the Bill should not he before the House in its present form and without the kind of detail that is necessary for its proper scrutiny. However, given that it has been introduced in these terms, at the very least the operation of the company itself and its future should be subject to debate and further action in the House should there be any major change such as that outlined in new clause 4. Equally, as is suggested in new clause 5, the discharge of its functions should be considered by the House.
If we are not being given the opportunity to debate it here and now, when frankly it should be debated, before we as a House decide whether this is something that we wish to implement, at the very least Ministers should have to return to the House to answer properly and in detail for the rules once they have been implemented. I find it disturbing that, in one piece of legislation after another that has been introduced by the Government, we seem to

be putting ever greater distances between the executive powers of Ministers and the ability of the House to exercise control over what they may do.
The Bill does not even guarantee that there shall be any proper financial accountability to the House, yet the House has the public responsibility to make proper use of what are, as the Government frequently point out, the funds of individual taxpayers. The Government should at least have to come here to ensure their accountability to hon. Members. It is extraordinary that a Government who never-endingly talk about the fact that the money that is raised through taxes is taxpayers' money and should be accounted for should leave so much on trust that that function will be properly discharged.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the legislation. The simple fact is that it will be subject to the normal processes of financial accountability that exist for public expenditure throughout the whole area of Government expenditure.

Mr. Taylor: As the Minister is equally aware—this is a debate that we have frequently, whatever the Bill coining from the Government—there is no automatic debate on the Floor of the House of such details. I have frequently heard Ministers argue, on all manner of Bills, that the legislation is subject to the normal procedures of the House, but the truth is that the normal procedures of the House do not allow proper scrutiny unless it is written on the face of the Bill, as our amendments argue.
I have said that the main bulk of my comments will be directed towards the specific concerns that we have outlined in new clause 12, which Liberal Democrats have tabled in our party's tradition of arguing for civil liberties and seeking to ensure the protection of the individual.
There is no guidance in the Bill on whether at some time the Student Loans Company might be sold off into the private sector, and Ministers have regularly said that that is the future that they would prefer for the company. However, if the company falls into the hands of the private sector, there is no guarantee about what will happen to the information that that company may hold. If the company were to stay within Government hands, it would be easier to lay down guidelines for its operation and for the use of its information.
In our discussions on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax, I recall that we debated at length the issue of whether the information contained on the poll tax register should go to the private sector. I talked then about the problems with some of the companies that follow up such information, of the use that is made of it and of the dubious practices in which some of those companies are engaged. The information held by the Student Loans Company goes far beyond anything held on the community charge register. It is detailed financial information regarding what ultimately may prove to be millions of former students who have gone through this country's education system.
It was interesting that some such concerns have been reflected in debates about bad debt as have been expressed by others outside the House. An article in The Daily Telegraph on 2 December 1989 reported that Sir Gordon Borrie, Director General of Fair Trading, when asked for his initial reaction to the position of students who failed to repay their loans—one piece of sensitive information that the company may have—said:


It is important not to treat students as defaulters. The worst scenario would be if the banks started acting in a tough way and created a whole new class of people in a default category.
That was when the banks were to have been running the system. The future of the Student Loans Company is even more uncertain—it may be with banks or credit companies; we do not know.

Mr. Jackson: No student will be pursued as a defaulter. We are talking about the pursuit of people who have incurred obligations to the taxpayer, possibly mature people in their 30s or 40s, who fail to repay the money borrowed from the taxpayer. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that they should not be pursued in the normal way to retrieve that money on behalf of the taxpayer and other students?

Mr. Taylor: I am well aware that we are talking about ex-students. However, two direct problems arise for Ministers when they make their case in favour of the pursuit of defaulters. In fact, there are three; I shall come to the third in a moment. However, of the two with which I am immediately concerned, the first is that these will not necessarily be ex-students on a reasonable income. They may well be people who decided to go into caring professions in which the sort of return they would make, particularly in the early years after leaving university, would he low.

Mr. Jackson: They will be deferred.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister says "deferred", but teachers' repayments will not be deferred.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Nor will the nurses'.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentions nurses; such people will not be in a good financial position in their early years after university.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There could even be people who had pursued courses and failed and, because of their failure, put themselves in a worse financial position than they would have been if they had not gone to university and involved themselves in full-time education. They would still have to repay the money. They would suffer considerably under these arrangements.

Mr. Taylor: That is absolutely right. We could risk straying too wide of the amendments if we pursued this matter much further. These arguments have all been fully debated in the House and my only regret is that Ministers seem deaf to the concerns.
My second point is that the companies that may he asked to pursue such people will by no means be the most pleasant ones. Many of us, as Members of Parliament, have met people who have run into problems with debt collection agencies. We have had no guarantees from Ministers about who will pursue the had debts. It is one thing for the Government to take on the responsibility themselves. While I cannot say that all Government Members are necessarily my best friends, they are honourable gentlemen, and I would not wish to cast aspersions on them. If the company is sold off, or even if

it is not, we have no evidence that Ministers, or even their civil servants, will be knocking on people's doors—it may well be debt collection sharks.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is unlikely to be Ministers.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend says it is unlikely to be Ministers, and it would be a nasty shock if they did. It is much more likely to be staff of debt collection agencies. The Government's silence about whom it will be only confirms that that will be so. I should like, and hope to get, an assurance from the Minister that I am wrong, and that professional Government employees, subject to the protections and constraints of public employees, will be responsible for this service. However, I fear that is not so, and the Minister will confirm that. The very fact that he is not reassuring me about this suggests that that is the case.
Thirdly, all too often in present circumstances, it will not be former students who get into trouble with the credit company. The information, which may be made available, can he used against third parties—other people in the same home. That is an issue of customer privacy that was aired at the conference of the Institute of Credit Management in London at the beginning of December and, again, reported in The Daily Telegraph on 2 December. The Data Protection Registrar, Eric Howe, said that he wanted lenders to stop using information about third party when assessing loan applications. The report states:
Lenders insist that the whole household's credit record is essential information; they have already agreed no longer to use details about family members who have moved away from home.
Discussions between the two sides have not resulted in any agreement and Mr. Howe is considering serving enforcement notices on four credit reference agencies.
The people who may be penalised as a result of the information being made available are not the former students in their 30s and 40s, about whom the Minister talks, who are doing very nicely and for some reason not paying their debts. Instead, they are third parties who are blackened as a result of others' actions. I hope that no hon. Member would approve of that. I suspect that, if an individual came to any of our surgeries and said that this had happened to him or her, we would be most sympathetic and try to overcome the problem. Why should the Government contribute to those difficulties?
These are the sort of issues raised in the Bill. I was a student only a few years ago. I am probably the most recent full-time student in the House. I was also the president of the students' union which had the highest turnout in elections—more than half, and that is better than most—of any students' union in the country. My involvement, both as a student and as a students' union president, gave me first-hand experience and also experience of those who came to the union with various financial problems.
Such experience allows me to appreciate the sort of questions that students are now asking, because they were asked then. I was then involved in the successful campaign against the introduction of student loans. Information about the privacy of the information that may be given, the accountability of the Student Loans Company, on what basis information may be sought or debts pursued, are precisely the facts that students want and the Government are currently refusing to give. I do not believe that any student who is told about the Government's present plans, without being given proper information, is likely to be satisfied.

Mr. Pawsey: rose——

Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a balance should be struck between the interests of the taxpayer and those of the student or graduate? It seems that the hon. Gentleman has lost sight of that balance. The system that we are introducing makes allowance for deferral of payment until one earns more than 85 per cent.——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is losing sight of the specific terms of the new clause.

Mr. Taylor: My concern is for all former students who may be hit by the operation of the company, particularly if it is privatised. I am concerned about the privacy of personal information which may be recorded as a result of the Bill and which should never have been recorded. The hon. Gentleman talks about the interests of the taxpayer, but the taxpayer's interests are not served by a system which, for many years to come, will cost the taxpayer large sums of money—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just heard me direct the attention of the House to the terms of the new clause. I hope that he will have regard to what I said.

Mr. Taylor: My concern is that the operation of the company, particularly if it gives the kind of information that Ministers have suggested that it will be allowed to give, will hit taxpayers and former students, as the Bill will do.

Dr. Hampson: I have been struggling to find answers in the reports of the Committee's proceedings, but I have been unable to do so. It is useful to have new clause 5 so that the provision of regulations governing the functions and finances of the Student Loans Company can be debated on the Floor of the House by Members who were not present in Committee but who have important questions about the company's operation.
The Student Loans Company will be a Government operation. Student loan repayments will not be collected through the Inland Revenue, as some of us have argued would be the most equitable method. That is the system adopted by the Australians. Therefore, I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister what provision he will make for chasing defaulters, particularly after 1992 and the increased mobility of labour across Europe.
How many staff have been designated as investigators to check the process of repayment, and what will that cost? If hordes of people are needed to track down potential defaulters, the cost of the operation will be substantially increased. That is the experience of the Americans. It is extraordinarily difficult to find defaulters who go to earth for a few years, travel round the world, come back and get a job somewhere else. How will such people be found? That question was not answered in Committee.
How will the system operate? We are talking not simply about how to take out a loan, but about what sort of courses will be eligible for loans. It is no longer a matter of discussing with somebody in a bank whether a course is eligible for a loan. The leaflet that has been sent to students implies that there has been a major expansion of the range

of courses. They go way beyond the courses that are presently eligible tinder the grant system. The leaflet mentions paramedical courses which, as far as I am aware, are not now eligible for mandatory grants.

Mr. Jackson: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that some 50,000 students not presently eligible for grants will come within the scope of our loan scheme, which is one of its many generous features.

Dr. Hampson: I am delighted to hear that, but who will be designating the courses? I assume that it will be the Secretary of State. What is a worthwhile course is a wide-open question. The leaflet says that people on higher national certificate courses will be eligible. I may be wrong, but, by definition, all higher national certificate courses used to be part-time and diploma courses were full-time. I welcome part-timers being eligible for loans, but a person doing a part-time university degree course will not be eligible while a person doing a part-time higher national certificate course in a polytechnic will. The choice of courses to be made eligible is crucial to steering the system.
When will students know whether the course that they are thinking of taking will be eligible for a loan? Will they be told at school, or will they have to wait until they go to university? Where does the onus for giving such advice rest? It is not now with the local hank manager. Will the institutions, the polytechnic or the university, be responsible and so bear the cost? Or will peripatetic counsellors from the Student Loans Company give advice in schools? Young people must think through their choice of course before they apply for a place so that they know the exact financial benefit. Loans could be a major benefit, but they must make a judgment because one course may be eligible while a similar one is not.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What view should this year's school leavers take when they still do not know the financial basis on which their studies will start, let alone continue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause relates to the functions of the Student Loans Company. I hope that we shall get back to that.

Dr. Hampson: Peripatetic counsellors from the Student Loans Company may be required to give advice about the type of courses for which the company is prepared to give loans. It is fundamental to the working of the entire system that people should know what courses will be eligible for student loans. Will the cost of that fall on the Student Loans Company, the institutions or the schools, or will young people be expected to discover the information for themselves? The leaflet does not say. It simply gives a broad range of courses that will be available. It says, "e. g. paramedical courses". It does not list which vocational courses are included.
The leaflet sent out on behalf of the Student Loans Company to instruct students about the process implies that there will be no change on two critical matters. For example, it suggests that the other place will not say that five years is too short a period for repayment. It says that loans must be paid back within five years. We must be more flexible. We are saying that everybody who has to repay a loan to the Student Loans Company who happens to have an income which is more than 85 per cent. of the national average will have to pay back the full whack within five years, despite the fact that there is a range of incomes just over £10,000.
Ministers have said that not more than £400 a year will have to be paid back, but how will that be done? By what apparatus will the Student Loans Company be able to say that someone's income has fallen below a certain level in a particular year because he has been out of work, or for some other reason, and that he does not have to pay any money?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with general matters which might be more relevant on Third Reading.

Dr. Hampson: I was hoping not to have to make a speech on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
New clause 5 says that the Secretary of State
shall make regulations which shall govern the discharge of functions by, and regulate the finances of".
I am trying to get Ministers to say how some of those functions will operate. The perceived fairness of the repayment to the company is essential to the acceptability of the scheme. How will the company achieve that? Ministers say that the repayment will not be onerous because it will not be more than £400 a year, but how will that be determined without a flexible system such as the Inland Revenue's computer system which can assess the circumstances of individual students and relate repayment to them?
The other place may decide that interest should be charged. The leaflet—not the Bill—says that the loan will be interest-free, but why? My right hon. Friend said that to abolish parental contributions would cost £390 million. The other place may say that the Student Loans Company should charge interest so that the money can be recycled much more quickly. On that basis I hope that the Treasury will put enough money up front to get rid of the parental contribution.

Mr. Jackson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend objects to yet another generous feature of our proposal, which is that the scheme should be interest-free. I do not know whether there is much support for the idea of charging a nominal rate of interest.

Dr. Hampson: There is more support for interest being charged than for its not being charged, for two reasons. The whole purpose of the Bill is to encourage more students into higher education. The only way in which the money can be recycled on any scale is to charge interest. Loans might be heavily subsidised, but interest would still be below a commercial rate and represent a major incentive. Money would be recycled far quicker, and one could even avoid the parental contribution, thus the loan could be recovered even more quickly than under the Government scheme. That is why I suggest an interest rate of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. as charged in the rest of the western world.
There is no need to bribe people with a wholly interest-free scheme. The fact that the Government have negotiated with the Treasury to make the scheme interest-free has not won a single extra supporter. I rest my case in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up, will explain some of the mechanisms by which the loan company will operate.

8 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am extremely diffident about speaking, because right hon. and hon. Members who were not involved in the hard work of the Committee stage should be reticent by comparison with their hard-working colleagues. I can only plead that I was involved in the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, which ran concurrently.
Having long had an interest in the subject of student loans, I have two factual questions for the Minister. Why was it that Sir Jeremy Morse, Sir Kit McMahon and John Quinton objected in the final analysis to the Government's proposals? In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he would answer that question, but it appears that he never got around to doing so. There was a great deal of banter, and that omission may not have been the Minister's fault. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to spell out why it was that those three distinguished bankers apparently decided at the last moment to risk the wrath of the Prime Minister. Whoever may be the Government of the day, such men are not automatically anti-Government. Bankers do not take such a decision lightly. Why did they do so on this occasion, and why do their objections not apply to the whole agency set-up now proposed?
I say in particular to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has special responsibility for education, that I am especially concerned about the expectations of students in the Scottish context. If one feels, as a graduate, that one is obliged to repay a loan, whether or not it is interest-free, that commitment hangs over one, albatross-like, and one is under pressure to enter well-paid, money-making jobs. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) knows precisely the point that I am about to make. Has any investigation been undertaken either by the Department of Education and Science or by the Scottish Office into the likely effect of the scheme on people wanting to become, for example, schoolteachers or Health Service workers? Only last night, the dean of Westminster expressed considerable concern to some hon. Members about the effect of the scheme on people wanting to enter the Church. All those jobs are, at least in the opinion of some, valuable to society.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends were busy on the Bill in Committee morning, noon and night, others of my right hon. and hon. Friends were busy with the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill. For the first time in 20 years, I persuaded the Solicitor-General to attend the Committee, which, most courteously, he did.
I am tempted to ask what detailed advice has been given by the Law Officers on the question of liability. The Under-Secretary interestingly remarked that the scheme would incur responsibilities for people in their 30s and 40s. If, in parliamentary work, one tries to unravel the past in terms of something that occurred 20 years ago one finds it very difficult. How does the Under-Secretary know that he will not be confronted by a series of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce cases? The Minister may laugh, and he can interrupt me if I am wrong.

Mr. Jackson: A graduate, having graduated, might defer for a number of years and then re-enter the labour market, at which point he might have an income higher than the threshold, making him eligible to repay the


money that he borrowed from the taxpayer. The person may by that time be in his 30s or 40s. He would simply be repaying a normal debt.

Mr. Dalyell: That is a great give-away. The borrower will be in and out of eligibility. First, he will not be eligible to make repayments, then something will change his circumstances and he will be eligible again. Can one imagine what would happen in the courts and all the legal wrangles that would arise? It is a question of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Anyone of a litigious frame of mind—and there are plenty of them—would be in the courts month after month, year after year. There would be no way round it if equity is to be achieved. If equity is not to be achieved, we had better be told.
I anticipate the answer to my question as to what studies have been made by the DES and the Scottish Office. I forecast that the scheme will all end in tears, and that the Under-Secretary will regret that he ever set his hand to it.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is always a most beguiling Cassandra, but the proposals before the House will not have the consequences that he described. As to why the banks withdrew from the scheme, that question is not for me but for the three bankers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. They made it clear that they had no objections to the principles of the scheme but that they had made a judgment in their own commercial interests. That does not reflect on the merits of the scheme itself, which is designed to be in the public interest, in providing more money to support students while they are studying. The banks' withdrawal from the scheme is irrelevant.
As to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), I may tell him first that the designation of courses should be straightforward. If he reads the Bill, he will see that in the case of what are described as public sector institutions, eligible courses are spelt out. One of their characteristics is that they are full-time courses. The list of courses designated in the private sector that are eligible for loans will, as in the case of those eligible for grant, be announced in good time for the autumn.
My hon. Friend asked about counselling. It will be available to students just as it is for grants.

Dr. Hampson: From whom?

Mr. Jackson: Counselling will be available from a variety of sources, including the local authorities from which the grants will be obtained and the institutions where applicants will be studying. Advice is already available in the form of the leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend inquired also about the repayment term. In Committee, it was made clear—and I am sorry that word of this did not reach him—that the repayment term will be extended as the scheme matures. We envisage a term of five years initially, and I told the Committee that we did not expect that repayments would normally be in excess of £400 per year at current values.

Dr. Hampson: I mentioned that figure, but that is not my point. It was not that the repayment would be extended as the scheme matures. I was asking my hon. Friend whether the Student Loans Company was capable of producing what I would call a mortgage repayment profile

in which, as the person starts off in a job with a low income, he pays back a relatively small amount, and then pays more as his income increases. Can the payments be adjusted to resources? Can the company do it? If not, why cannot public funds be recollected by a public agency—the obligation to the taxpayer was mentioned—that is, by the Inland Revenue? How else can it be done?

Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained some of the reasons why the Government do not find the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should collect back the loans acceptable.
There are many student loan schemes around the world and nearly all of them are similar to the scheme that we are proposing, and they are operating successfully. Only one scheme uses the Inland Revenue in the way that my hon. Friend suggested. It is only two years old, and it will be interesting to see whether it survives.
The scheme that we are proposing is responsive to the graduate's income. There will be no obligation to repay the loan if income falls below 85 per cent. of the national average. Our proposal is more generous than my hon. Friend seems to envisage, because we do not intend that the graduate should pay any positive interest rate.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I shall pursue the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked, which has also been alluded to by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). After 10 or 12 years have elapsed, how will the Student Loans Company know that the liable person's income has passed beyond the 85 per cent. threshold?

Mr. Jackson: The Government are proposing a simple test which will rely on the honesty of graduates, and we expect it to he fulfilled. There will be a process of self-declaration, subject to sample checking. It is simple to ascertain graduates' income and how it relates to the threshold, which will be promulgated and announced. People will have to assess for themselves whether their income is above or below the threshold, and the whole process will be subject to sample survey.

Mr. Smith: Is the Under-Secretary saying that, after 10 years on a low income, it is up to the person to decide whether his income exceeds the relevant level and to ring up the Student Loans Company and say, "Please activate my direct debit"? Is that how it will work? It is a farce.

Mr. Jackson: There will be more contact than the hon. Gentleman supposes between the Student Loans Company and graduates. They will be regularly solicited to establish whether they are eligible to start repaying the loan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-West referred to the default rate in the United States. That subject was covered extensively in Committee. The default rate there is high, but that is because the American loan scheme is more wide-ranging than the scheme that we are proposing. The loan scheme that operates in Scandinavia would make a proper comparison, except that it is less generous to students than ours. Default rates there are running at between 1 and 2 per cent. and we believe that British graduates will he as honest as the Scandinavians.

Dr. Hampson: That may he the case, but I have studied the matter carefully. I have seen the work of Dr. Woodall and many others, and I have been a teacher in the States


and I know that there are differences between federal and state schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that one of the problems in the United States has been that when it has been left to a state institution, in particular to a college or university, to track people down, it has not had the resources to do so. Once it gets round the student world that one can virtually escape repayment, it requires massive resources, such as those now proposed by the Federal Congress, to ease the burden that has built up.

Mr. Jackson: I think that my hon. Friend is making a meal of this. We are talking about consumer credit, which is provided extensively by many agencies around the country. The business of collecting relatively small sums from a relatively large number of people is well established. Many practices and procedures are connected with it, and are perfectly acceptable in a commercial operation. My hon. Friend may wish to consider the biography of the chief executive of the Students Loans Company. He started by running consumer credit for the Ford Motor Company, for large numbers of people borrowing money for motor cars. He did similar work for Philips, and for companies operating in Canada. My hon. Friend must not suppose that there is anything new, dramatic, unusual or shocking about this procedure.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose——

Mr. Jackson: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will want me to make progress now with the new clauses. I have given way to several hon. Members, but they have raised issues which were mentioned in debate but which are not relevant to the new clauses. But I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Taylor: My question, which arises from the Under-Secretary's reference to sampling, is: who will be responsible for sampling students? How many will be checked? What information are they expected to get—will it be from the Inland Revenue or the employer?

Mr. Jackson: I am not sure that that point is relevant. We envisage that deferment will have to be applied for and justified annually to the Student Loans Company, and the company will do that.
The new clause relates to the legal characteristics of the Student Loans Company, which is limited by shares, and at present all the shares are owned by the Government. The Government's present intention is, subject to the passage of the legislation, to contract with the Student Loans Company for the administration of the scheme. It will not necessarily be a perpetual contract, and nor should it be. We must retain the option in later years of letting a fresh contract, which may be with a new body, on a competitive basis. It is important to avoid anything in the legislation that might prevent the Executive from serving the public interest by securing a competitive arrangement.
The new clause envisages that what will essentially be a private law commercial arrangement, such as the sale of the Student Loans Company, should be subject to parliamentary approval. That is entirely inappropriate. It must be a commercial transaction, and the new clause is even more inappropriate, as it provides that any disposal of assets by the Student Loans Company requires

parliamentary approval. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) thought the new clause through. One implication is that every time the Student Loans Company wants to sell a desk or a typewriter that it has finished with, it will have to come back to both Houses of Parliament for approval. I cannot believe that Opposition Members seriously envisaged that.
We believe that it would be inappropriate for the detailed arrangements between the Government and the Student Loans Company to be established by legislation. It would make no practical sense to do so. The route that is conventionally employed in those cases is a financial memorandum or contract. The arrangements will necessarily be complex but will be routine in character and it would simply not be a proper use of parliamentary time—whether Government's or Opposition's—to go into that extensively.
The nature of the relationship between the Government and the company may change. The Secretary of State needs flexibility to develop the scheme, and could not do so if he was tied in the way that the new clause proposes.
Some hon. Members referred to privatisation. The ownership of the Student Loans Company clearly lies with the Government at present, but they do not want to close the door on opportunity for privatisation at a later stage. It may well be to the advantage of the taxpayer to be able to reduce some of the costs of the administration of the scheme by putting it into private hands. Should the Student Loans Company revert to private ownership—and we must remember that it was originally conceived as a vehicle in private hands—at a later stage, the mechanism for the transfer of ownership would probably be a sale of share capital.
There is no reason why the Student Loans Company should not remain in its present form, as a company limited by shares. Changing it to a company limited by guarantee confers no obvious benefit, although the Opposition may think that it does, and nor does it impose any restriction. If the Student Loans Company were in the form proposed in the new clause, it would still be able to dispose of assets, and the new clause would not achieve the object stated for it.
Several Opposition Members seemed to make out that they alone were concerned about civil liberties. I yield to no one in the House in my concern for student liberties. It is irresponsible of Opposition Members to try to run a hare to scare people about this issue.
The Student Loans Company, whether in or out of public ownership, will be subject to the Data Protection Act in the same way as all similar operations and enterprises. The Act—which was passed under the present Government—provides valuable protection for the individual, while recognising the need for controlled exchange in the use of personal data. The Goverment are wholly committed to the enforcement of the Act through the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.
Borrowers will be given the same protection as they would receive if they had borrowed from a commercial lender. All the people concerned will have bank accounts, which will be treated in exactly the same way as accounts with the Student Loans Company. The company, like other commercial operators, can hold personal data only if those data are registered under the Act, and can use them only for the registered purposes. The data may not be disclosed without the authority of the individual to whom the information relates, as with normal commercial


banking operations. Furthermore, under the Data Protection Act the individual is entitled to receive a copy of any data relating to him held by a data user, on payment of a reasonable fee. Those protections will apply irrespective of who owns the Student Loans Company.
The Opposition's proposal is completely unnecessary. It would he absurd to pass a law stating that companies must do what the law already obliges them to do. The Student Loans Company, and any sub-contracted company, will be as tightly controlled by the Office of the Data Protection Registrar as any other company holding personal data. That, I believe, is a complete answer to the canard about civil liberties that Opposition Members sought to introduce.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already spoken once; he cannot speak again.

Mr. Andrew Smith: It is abundantly clear from the Minister's inability to deal satisfactorily with the most elementary inquiries about the administration of the student loans scheme that it has not been thought through properly. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to intervene: I gladly give way to him.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister's reply to me was extraordinary. He said, in effect, "If you want to know the answer to your question, you must ask the people concerned." That might be all right in some contexts, but it would certainly not be all right in the context of my question. I simply asked why the chairmen of Lloyds bank and the Midland bank—serious people—had decided not to go along with the Government's scheme. Surely a Minister should have had the curiosity to find out why such people should consider the scheme—as I suspect—unworkable.
I have asked Sir Kit McMahon many things, but it is not my business to ask him such a question. It is a Minister's business to do so. The Minister should have had the curiosity to ask, and the candour to tell the House of Commons what reply he received.

Mr. Smith: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to respond to my hon. Friend. Obviously he does not: it appears that he is unable to answer. The lack of replies to our straightforward questions is extraordinary. It is clear to us at least that the banks pulled out because they have no confidence in the scheme, which—as we have shown—is an administrative nightmare.
In the interests of hon. Members who are keen to speak on later amendments, I shall seek leave to withdraw the motion, leaving the Government to reflect on the wisdom of the arguments that have been put to them. They have not thought through their proposals, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said—it will end in tears.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

LOANS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 6. in page 1, line 5, after 'arrangements,' insert
'to take effect from September 1991'.
I could summarise the amendment by describing it as a "Let's halt awhile" measure. My intention was to try to check the Government's rapid descent into implementation of what appears to be an unimplementable scheme. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the paucity of information with which we have been supplied, but I shall rehearse—as I consider them overwhelmingly convincing—the arguments for the Government to defer implementing student loans until next year which are supported even by the case that they have made for the scheme.
Opposition Members, along with some Conservatives, have made clear their opposition to the Government's proposals——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not many Conservatives.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady says, "Not many"——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Only the pinkoes.

Mr. Hughes: Although uttered from a sedentary position, the hon. Lady's remark must have been audible: she said that those of her Friends who opposed the scheme were "only the pinkoes".

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I stand by that.

Mr. Hughes: If some of the most eminent members of the Conservative party are now being described as "only the pinkoes", God save us from those in the rest of the country who are bluer than they are.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I assume from those remarks that hon. Members representing the north of Ireland could best he described as either "greenoes" or "orangeoes"?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has led us into dangerous territory, but it is far more dangerous to Conservative Members than it is to the Opposition. I observed that the previous vote did not show the largest Government majority.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There were enough to beat the Opposition.

Mr. Hughes: There were enough to beat us, but they constituted only about half the Government's full majority. I do not think that the hon. Lady should be too confident about the survival of the scheme in either House.
Behind closed doors, the Government are trying to produce their scheme in time for the autumn. All who apply for university, polytechnic or college places in December, filling up an UCCA form as they are required to do, will have done so without knowing whether they will receive grants and loans, and without knowing whether the scheme will be run by banks. The forms have gone in and the clearing houses are looking at them, but the applicants still do not know what will happen. In only six and a half months, students will be entering those educational institutions.
Even with the strongest possible Whip in both Houses, the Government are unlikely to get the Bill through much


before Easter: they will have only a handful of months in which to implement the scheme. All the advice that has been received makes it clear that they needed to know the details by the beginning of this year, let alone Easter.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman has just destroyed his case. The grants for this autumn have been published and are known. The Government have said that if students want to borrow under the scheme they can, but they do not have to. They know exactly where they are.

Mr. Hughes: In so far as he makes the point, the hon. Gentleman is right: the uprating of grants has been announced. What students do not know is whether after year one they will be in a grant scheme or a grant plus loan scheme. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone, as he represents a university city, that if the scheme were defeated it would be very difficult for the Government to say next year, in the run-up to a general election, that there would be no further increase in grants. Many of his hon. Friends, if not the hon. Gentleman himself, will be pressing the Government to uprate grants next year, as they have this year.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is right: I represent a university town. Let us assume that most of the students there come from outside Nottingham. They already know that their grant is £2,265, and they will receive it this autumn. I am assuming that they will receive the full grant; I do not wish to get involved in discussing parental contributions. If they wish, they can borrow as well. Whatever happens, they know that for certain, come the autumn of 1991—even if the grant is frozen, as we say it will be—they will still get the other £400, if they wish to borrow it, uprated. The facts are already known and there need not be a delay to 1991.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would not find much support among those who plan more than a few months ahead. The Government may run on a timetable of coping with the problems of today, without thinking ahead to the problems of tomorrow, but most people want to know how the regime will affect them not just for next year. If the hon. Gentleman wants support for that view, he need only talk to people who have bought their own houses under the Government's incentive plans and are now wondering why interest rates are so high.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I represent a university city. My university has been inundated with applications. All those applicants know that towards the end of their university careers they will not be on grant because some form of loan scheme will come into practice. They are basing themselves on that, and still the applications are arriving in increasing numbers.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady represents an eminent city and university, but I do not believe that those who have applied this academic year to start university courses next year have done so with the knowledge at the forefront of their minds that the scheme will change from grants to loans.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman underestimates their intelligence.

Mr. Hughes: I do not underestimate their intelligence. There have been increasing numbers of applications, which I welcome. I accept that there are more this year in many places, although not in all; in some of the best there has been a decline in applications because of the shortage of engineering, science and other courses. I expect that next year there will be a considerable dropping off in applications because, if the Bill becomes law, many of the most disadvantaged students will be unable to take the risk of not having the money and of having to borrow it and give it back.

Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He is right that there has not been the consistent pattern that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) suggests. Although the evidence from her constituency may be good, one could give other examples, such as Imperial college, London, where there has been a 15 per cent. drop in applications for science subjects. Surely that information is as valid to put before the House as that adduced by the hon. Member for Lancaster.

Mr. Hughes: These matters will be proved only when we see the number of applications next year. Of course, people are continuing to apply, but they are doing so under a grant system. We are regularly reminded in the House that we cannot assume the passage of legislation. The Government like to assume that they will get all their legislation, but I warn Conservative Members that some of their hon. Friends in another place will not support the Bill. Indeed, the measure would have benefited from a delay for further consideration, and the same could be said of other Government proposals.
Perhaps the Government should have been wiser and taken, say, a year's delay in implementing the Bills on football ID cards and the poll tax. Had they done that, the standing of the Conservatives in the opinion polls would probably have been much higher than it is now. I counsel Conservative Members seriously to listen to the arguments, which are overwhelming, for deferring the implementation of the Bill until 1991.
We need some facts. Is it not correct that the task of recruiting and retaining the personnel at the Student Loans Company is already way behind target dates? There was a delay at the beginning and the Government have just appointed the directors. It would be interesting to know how many staff have been recruited. Is it not a fact that we have no information about who will chase the defaulters whom we discussed in the previous debate? We do not know who the Student Loans Company will engage to do that job. We do not know whether any payment will be given to the institutions for certificating. They have had to deal for the first time this year with the poll tax, and with registering all their students, and they are not happy about that. They will not be happy about the additional tasks that this measure will impose on them.
Nor do we know anything about the administration of the access funds. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there will be three or four access funds, but the Government have given no commitment on that. It seems that there will need to be at least four access funds because everyone in London will be above-average losers, given the loss of benefit, and will have to apply for access funds. Not only could we do with more than four, but we could do


with one for London students alone. If the institutions are to administer the access funds, they will need the personnel and information to do it. No information about that is available.
It is fortuituous that the Department happened to produce the "wonderful form" this week—it would be interesting to know when it was commissioned—but we have not been told when students will be able to apply for their forms, when they should be sent in and, most important, when they will be processed.
Price Waterhouse provided the Government with some interesting figures. Do the Government accept that they may receive applications from 500,000 students, to be processed, on present proposals, by a staff of 130? If so, and if Price Waterhouse is correct that a staff of 250 will process only 3,575 applications a day, it will take a staff of 130 seven and a half months to process the applications.
At the rate we are going, students who apply in the summer will not know until 1991 whether they will receive loans. That is not an acceptable state of affairs—[Interruption.] Occupants of the Labour Front Bench should not regard this as an unimportant issue.

Mr. Paul Boateng: It is important. We want to vote on it.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that Labour Members intend to support the amendment, but first we need some answers from the Government. When the Government supply those answers, they will give the lie to the suggestion that they are ready to implement the scheme.
We were told that students would lose all their social security benefits. For that to happen there must be regulations, but so far we have seen no social security regulations or details of any other changes. We have not heard of anything like that being referred to the relevant social security advisory committee, yet there are only a few months to go before this comes into operation. The administration of the scheme was described by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), whom the hon. Member for Lancaster would no doubt describe as a pinko——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh yes.

Mr. Hughes: She describes him as a pinko, even though he was an adviser to the former Secretary of State, now Lord Joseph, who by no definition should be described as a pinko. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said that it looked as though the scheme would not be off the ground by the autumn.
The scheme is not yet in good shape and few facts about it are known. It does not look as though it will be fully in place by September. The Government have only said that they hope it will be in place by then. The chances of effectively processing the applications are slim, if not non-existent. The access funds and their arrangements are a mystery and the social security arrangements have not even been published, let alone consulted about. The Government are doing to education this year what they have done often in the past. They are rushing through something without any guarantee that the system can deliver.
If the Government listened to teachers, who are trying to implement the national curriculum or prepare children for new exams, they would know how big a price is paid when the Government are determined at all costs to rush

for the tape. I hope that wiser counsel will prevail. Sad as it is, if they want to, the Government can still be in power for another year. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State can still be in their posts. If they take time, the Government may be able to justify their scheme, but if they rush ahead, this may end in tears.

Mr. Andrew Smith: If the Government will not abandon their scheme, clearly they would he wise to defer its introduction as proposed in the amendment. We support the amendment and will do so in the Lobby.

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsey (Mr. Hughes) judges the efficiency of government by the standards of the administrative efficiency of the Liberal party. That is why he has such difficulty in understanding how we can press on with the scheme.
I want to reassure the House and all those who may read or follow the proceedings that the scheme will be ready to operate from autumn 1990. The Government do not accept amendment No. 6, which would deny students access to loans in the academic year beginning in September. We see no merit in delaying the scheme in the way proposed.
By autumn 1990, the Education (Student Loans) Bill should have received Royal Assent, after due debate in both Houses, and the necessary secondary regulations required to establish the scheme should have been passed. The Student Loans Company will be fully operational and I can reassure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that recruitment is going very well. My Department and the Student Loans Company will have undertaken detailed consultation with the higher education institutions about the role that they will be performing. The funds for the initial loans outlay which are already provided for by the Treasury in the Government's spending plans which were published in the public expenditure White Paper will be available, so we anticipate that there will be no obstacle to the introduction of loans by autumn this year.
One good reason why we should introduce the loans in autumn is were we not to do so we would deny students access to substantially increased resources. The maximum grant plus loan in 1990–91 will represent a 25 per cent. increase on the grant alone in the current year. The loan will provide an extra £420 for students outside London, and £460 a year for students in London.
The amendment would take away that valuable facility from students from autumn this year. I am sure that students would not thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for that service. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Mr. Alton: Not least because the House would want the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to regain their reputations after the savage attack by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), I am sure that the period of reflection provided for in the amendment is urgently needed. I should like to say just a few words before we consider the amendment. [Interruption.] I am glad that those on the Labour Front Bench are looking forward to that possibility with such enthusiasm.
The first reason why I believe the scheme should be deferred is that it runs against the grain of the two major pieces of education legislation enacted in the last century


and the present one. They provided the opportunity for many poorer people being able to benefit from higher education. The Education Act 1870 provided for free education and the Education Act 1944, introduced by an enlightened Conservative Government, gave many people from poorer parts of the community their first opportunity to go into higher education. I came from a working class background and was brought up on a council estate and had the chance to go into higher education as a result of the 1944 legislation. It would be a retrograde step if, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South suggested earlier today, the Bill were to deter people from under-privileged backgrounds from taking up opportunities in higher education.
A survey conducted at Cambridge university in 1986 suggested that a half-loan, half-grant system would deter some 46 per cent. of women and 37 per cent. of men from entering university; and some 45 per cent. of state school pupils, but only 33 per cent. of public school pupils. So despite the claims made earlier today, it is clear that such a scheme would be a deterrent to people from poorer backgrounds.
Evidence from overseas militates also against introducing a student loans scheme. We should defer the scheme for consideration to decide whether it really is the wisest course of action. The National Union of Students discovered that, in Sweden and Norway, there was a considerable reduction in numbers of students from poorer backgrounds going into higher education as a consequence of their loan schemes.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I do not know what school the hon. Gentleman attended, but I believe, and the hon. Gentleman may well accept, that the biggest deterrent to people from working-class homes going to university was the abolition of the grammar school. I am happy to say that ours was not abolished, but when I was at school people from all walks of Jife could go to the grammar school and go on to university. Now they are debarred from doing that.

Mr. Alton: I wish that the amendment allowed us to debate that in full, but it does not, although I say in passing that I disagree with the hon. Lady.
Secondly, we should defer the scheme for further consideration because many other unforeseen circumstances have come into play. The community charge will clearly have a desperate financial impact on students from poorer backgrounds. It is already having that effect in Scotland. In addition, higher housing costs are having an adverse effect, and many students have lost housing benefit. We also know that there are inevitably educational implications for students facing financial hardship.
A recent survey shows that a growing number of students are taking up part-time employment to subsidise their budgets. That jeopardises their grades. Some students now have to work an average of 10 hours a week. The survey shows that the grades of those students forced to work to raise additional money to finance themselves are suffering. In turn, that leads to graduates not achieving the best possible qualification.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Who did the survey?

Mr. Alton: It was conducted by the Department of Education and Science, so it is not a matter of what I think but it is another perfectly valid reason why the scheme should be deferred.
Deferment of the scheme would also give us a chance to consider the impact of special categories which I do not believe have been given sufficient consideration in Committee or on Report. I should like to give the House just one example. The medical students at Liverpool university undergo long courses and face the huge cost of financing medical courses and clinical equipment. Special provision should he made for such groups. It is not just special pleading; it shows the Government's failure to recognise what will happen to students in those groups.
Deferment of the scheme would enable us to reflect on the impact on applications for higher education. The CBI, to whom the Government should listen, says that demand for graduates will increase by about 4 per cent. a year. Members of the CBI, other organisations, and even the high street banks have expressed reservations about the effect of the scheme on the numbers going into university and colleges. Our ambition should be to double the number of students in higher education by the turn of the century. That should not divide the House; it should unite us. That is why a period of reflection about the best way to finance higher education is needed.
The massive cuts in grant over the past decade has led to hardship. It has been a disincentive. I believe that student loans will be a millstone around the necks of many young people and will be an additional discouragement to those contemplating a course in education.
Yet another reason for deferment of the scheme is the issue of personal debt. In November and in February I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer questions that will briefly illustrate my point. On 30 November the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to my question, said that the level of outstanding debt in the country stood currently at £378 billion. On 15 February I asked the Chancellor for the average level of debt per person in the country. The Economic Secretary replied:
he average level of personal debt in the United Kingdom is approximately £7,870 per adult.
I put it to the House that it cannot be in the best interests of the country to continue to encourage people to go into large-scale personal debt, with all its implications for family life. Such encouragement puts people in hock, constantly in debt, often unable to meet usurious rates of interest, which seem constantly to he hiked up.
Finally, if the House were to defer this scheme we would have a chance to reflect on the widespread concern expressed by academics and students alike. We have heard today about the opposition of vice-chancellors and other academics. I also want to refer to the reaction of students in polytechnics and universities. Just today I received a further stack of representations from students at Liverpool polytechnic. On 8 November 1989, I submitted to this House a petition signed by 1,562 people at Liverpool university. Many other hon. Members, in various parts of the House, have received identical representations. Those representations ought properly to be taken into account, but that has not been done. We should be trying to achieve an education system that will motivate outward-looking young people. Turning our colleges into battlegrounds will not achieve that. We should be turning them into places of learning, centres of excellence.
This amendment is an appeal for wisdom—a commodity which, sadly, is far too often in short supply. I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and commend the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 220.

Division No. 77]
[8.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gordon, Mildred


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Alton, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Haynes, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Battle, John
Hood, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Greville


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boyes, Roland
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bradley, Keith
Kennedy, Charles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lambie, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lamond, James


Buckley, George J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Canavan, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAllion, John


Clay, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McCrea, Rev William


Cohen, Harry
McGrady, Eddie


Coleman, Donald
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
Maclennan, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cummings, John
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tarn
Mallon, Seamus


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliot


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Murphy, Paul


Flannery, Martin
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foster, Derek
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prescott, John





Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Quin, Ms Joyce
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redmond, Martin
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Turner, Dennis


Richardson, Jo
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Archy Kirk wood and Mrs. Ray Michie.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Steinberg, Gerry





NOES


Adley, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkinson, David
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butler, Chris
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, John


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth






Hordern, Sir Peter
Rost, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jackson, Robert
Shelton, Sir William


Janman, Tim
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sims, Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Maclean, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trotter, Neville


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walden, George


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mellor, David
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Warren, Kenneth


Moore, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Wheeler, Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Whitney, Ray


Needham, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Nicholas


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Patnick, Irvine
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Powell, William (Corby)



Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Roe, Mrs Marion

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A very serious situation has been brought to my notice. Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was due to address a meeting of the National Union of Teachers—some 500 people. I believe that, after a short while, 450 people left to attend an alternative meeting in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has all this to do with me'?

Mr. King: I should like to explain, if I may, that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was conducting that meeting in the House, with 450 members of the NUT present, according to the reports that I have in front of me. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the Scrjeant at Arms what room in this building is able to take such a large number of people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see that press reports are a matter on which I can be expected to be an authority. It was not a point of order.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, people are not supposed to mislead the House by repeating Press Association reports which are completely and utterly inaccurate. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) can find any room in this House, particularly Room 16, that can seat 450 people——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be generally wise if hon. Members were to take precautions before quoting anything from newspapers.

Clause 1

LOANS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Mike Watson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 1 to 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to consider amendment No. 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end add—
'( ) This Act does not extend to Scotland.'.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to move the amendment standing in my name. This group, as I understand it, is the Scottish group standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar.)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) is in the process of moving amendment No. 9.

Mr. Watson: I think it is important, although some reference has been made today to the situation in Scotland, to have it spelt out quite clearly that simply to read the legislation across from England and Wales to Scotland is not good enough. Quite apart from their different education systems, the effect, because of that difference, will be that the application of a student loan scheme will be considerably more harsh in Scotland.
This point has been made several times. It was made in the Adjournment debate on 20 October 1989, on Second Reading on 5 December and several times in Committee—all, I have to say, to no great effect as far as the Government are concerned. Whether the arguments by me and other hon. Members this evening will convince them is at best open to question. None the less, because these points are important and remain valid, I and my colleagues will continue to press them.
It is quite clear that Scotland's unique education system has been ignored in the White Paper. Despite the fact that the White Paper was 48 pages long, Scotland merited no more than 18 lines. The lip service paid to Scotland, unfortunately, has been confirmed by Government Members on both Front and Back Benches throughout the Bill's progress.
The Bill completely fails to acknowledge that the Scottish education system has at its cornerstone the four-year honours degree. There has been no shortage of opportunities for the Government to take that point on board and incorporate it in the Bill through a number of amendments. They have chosen not to take those


opportunities. In fact, they have made no concessions whatsoever at any stage in the process on any facet of the Bill.
The four-year degree course in Scotland will be profoundly affected by the operation of the scheme. The financial implications will take a number of forms. First, the additional year's loan which will be required for students studying on a four-year course will be at least 50 per cent. greater than for those on a three-year course. That takes into account a fairly generous prognostication of the rate of inflation. The whole White Paper is charted through to the year 2027 on the basis of a 3 per cent. annual increase in inflation, which is rashly optimistic.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose——

Mr. Watson: I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is about to say that that does not matter, that it is the real effect which counts. I shall give way to him, although I am sure that I can anticipate what he will say.

Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the rate of inflation is irrelevant because there is a zero real rate of interest on the loan? Does he agree that it is the real and not the nominal burden which matters to those who are repaying the loan?

Mr. Watson: I do not agree that the rate of inflation is irrelevant. I gave an example in Committee. The Government's intention, charted to the year 2007, is that there should be a 50 per cent. loan element and a 50 per cent. grant element. The present level of grant stands at about £2,200. Therefore, if the scheme were fully operational now, we should be asking students to borrow £1,100–50 per cent. of that figure. If the hon. Member for Eastwood is saying that that figure is inconsiderable and that students will not bother about it, I must take issue with him, as would many others who are currently studying or who might wish to study in the future. I am happy to deal with the matter in either way. On the real value, the figure is £1,100 a year at 50:50. That figure is large enough to prove a disincentive to students and potential students.
Secondly, over and above that figure is the cost of an additional year's loss of benefit through studying for an extra year. The loss of housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit will in many ways be more damaging to students than the fact that they will have to borrow a significant part of their income while they are studying. Getting rid of housing benefit is an especially punitive measure for students. The White Paper speaks of an average figure of £211 a year being claimed in housing benefit by students throughout the United Kingdom. Again, that is an optimistic figure.
I have been given figures that cover students based in Edinburgh which show that, for the 30-week portion of the academic year for which students are deemed to be studying, the average figure was about £290. That ignores the vacation period, for which the average figure was £209. With simple arithmetic, we see that that produces a figure of about £500, which is a real loss to students in the Edinburgh area. I admit that housing costs there are higher than anywhere else in Scotland and higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Edinburgh. Does he accept that

Aberdeen has had for some time as high a cost of living as London? Whereas students in London receive London weighting, students in Aberdeen have had to make do with the basic grant. That has caused considerable hardship for students in Aberdeen. The problems facing students in Aberdeen can often be greater than for those in Edinburgh.

Mr. Watson: I am perfectly willing to take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. My point is simply that the notional average of £211 is unrealistic when measured against the amount that those who are obliged to claim housing benefit actually claim. Even if those dependent on housing benefit, both through the academic and vacation parts of the year, took the maximum loan available to them, they would still be considerably short of the portion that they are losing in housing benefit. That takes no account of the fact that they cannot claim unemployment benefit and that income support cannot be claimed except in two specialised circumstances. For housing benefit, age is relevant because those over the age of 24 stand to lose an even higher figure, which is a real problem.
Thirdly, the four-year course in Scotland also means that there is an additional vacation which has to be financed. That is often a real problem for students. It is all very well to say that students can obtain jobs in the summer and do not need to claim unemployment benefit, but we all know what the job market is like at the moment. It is often extremely difficult for students to get jobs.
Even those who pick up employment benefit do so for the whole period or even for the larger part of it. At that time, pressures on students increase. If they cannot find jobs, they are at a disadvantage compared to other people who are seeking work. Students cannot claim unemployment benefit or income support if they cannot get jobs. The Government's figures for 1988, published in the Employment Gazette, show that the student unemployment rate during the vacation was 31 per cent. That meant that students up to the age of 24 could claim benefit of £27·40 a week, and those aged 25 or over could claim £34·70 a week. Now that money has gone.
A point to which little reference is made is that benefit will also be denied to further education students who will not have access to loans. They will have to rely on the access funds, so called, which in themselves will be inadequate. Can anyone say that the loss of benefit to a. potential student will not make him or her decide that it is not worth studying? It must be a real disincentive to those who wish to enter higher education.
9.15 pm
The fourth disincentive to Scots or to students undertaking a four-year course in Scotland concerns the extra burden on parents. The Under-Secretary has made considerable play of the fact that part of the aim of the legislation is to take the burden off parents. Many parents cannot or will not make up grants by parental contribution. In theory, the loans system will reduce the burden on parents. In practice, there will still be a strong moral case, if nothing more, for parents to assist students during vacations. Students living at home will make additional demands on parents. Those living away from home may be forced to seek assistance from their parents if they cannot get part-time jobs.
Students may also need to retain accommodation over the holiday period. Again, that comes into the argument


on housing benefit. The non-payment of housing benefit to students is a disincentive and means that a moral, if not a financial, burden will fall on their parents.
For students on a four-year course, there will be a delay in entering the employment market. That factor must be taken into account. Of course, it could be argued that someone with an honours degree will have a better chance of getting a job and may even get a job with a better starting salary. But if a potential student adds everything up, he or she may say, "I was hoping to do an honours degree, but the financial implications are such that I will opt for a three-year course."
We were pleased to learn in Committee that the doubt about eligibility for loans for students studying for the certificate of education has been cleared up. Students who take a first degree and then want to study for an additional year to become teachers will have access to the loans scheme. While we are not happy about the loan system, it does not make sense that postgraduates should be excluded. However, honours degree students in Scotland who want to become teachers will have to study for five years. The financial implications, on a compounding basis, should be clear.
A further and wider consideration arises in regard to the education system in Scotland. I have said that the cumulative effect of the Government's actions can only be a disincentive to potential students. It is not just a case of whether they will go into higher education. Some who opt for higher education will choose the three-year course, but if the course on which a student has decided to embark is available in England or Wales, he or she may opt not to study in Scotland but to study instead in England or Wales.
The House should consider what effect that could have on Scottish education. At present, about 3,000 or 6 per cent. of all Scots who enter higher education leave Scotland and study at universities and colleges in England and Wales. About 10,000 students from England and Wales come to study at colleges and universities in Scotland. That makes up about 16 per cent. of the total number of students in higher education in Scotland.
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that about 23 per cent. of those who study in Scotland do three-year courses. I am prepared to accept that figure, but it leaves 77 per cent. who do a four-year course. That is a high percentage, which should not be brushed aside with the smirk and smile that we are seeing from the hon. Member for Eastwood. It is an important factor. Several thousand students do four-year courses.
I speculate that there will be economic pressures on Scottish students to study in England and Wales rather than stay in Scotland, and on students in England and Wales to stay there rather than come up to Scotland. If the figures of 16 per cent. and 6 per cent. which I mentioned were equalised, for the sake of argument, to 10 per cent.—which is not an unrealistic potential effect of the proposals—some 5,000 students would either leave Scotland to study in England and Wales or would not cross the border to study in Scotland. When one considers that there are about 16,000 students in higher education in Scotland, the implications are clear: one or more colleges or institutions in Scotland could close as a result of loans.
I am conscious of the time and the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak. There is a great deal of evidence from the broadest base of the Scottish educational

community that student loans will hit Scots and Scottish education particularly hard. The bulk of informed opinion—not political opinion—from universities, vice-chancellors and central institutions in Scotland regards loans as a bad idea which will have a seriously detrimental effect on Scottish education.
If the proposed legislation cannot be applied fairly and equitably, it should be withdrawn. I suspect that the Government will not do that. Therefore, they should at least recognise that the position in Scotland is different and should allow Scotland to be spared the worst excesses of the measure. The only method of doing that is to withdraw references to Scotland from the Bill.

Mr. Allan Stewart: References were made to Scotland on earlier groups of amendments. References were also made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It should perhaps be recorded that the Secretary of State is a distinguished graduate of Scotland's most ancient university, which is more than can be said of some of the Opposition Members who propose to contribute to the debate.
I shall be brief but I hope to save the time of the House by pointing out to Opposition Members the disadvantages of dividing the House on either amendment. Amendment No. 9 would exclude the Scottish colleges from the Bill but would not exclude the universities. Amendment No. 10 would exclude the Scottish universities completely.
The consequence of amendment No. 10 would be as follows. The grant would be maintained at its present level north and south of the border. In England and Wales next year top-up loans would be available, representing a 25 per cent. increase in students' resources. However, in Scotland there would be no top-up loans. My hon. Friend the Minister of State might say that there is a political argument for allowing the House to divide and keeping Conservative Members out of the Lobbies——

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: What about students from England who go to Scottish universities? As English students, would they receive a top-up loan while a Scot going to a Scottish university would not? That would be ridiculous.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. It would depend whether amendment No. 9 or amendment No. 10 were accepted. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State were so minded, he could simply keep Conservative Members out of the Lobby in the Division and let the Labour party have the great triumph of depriving students at Scottish universities of loans. As a result, only students in English universities would have loans, so we could go round Scotland saying, "That is what the Labour party wanted", because the grant would not change. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a political argument for allowing that to happen. However, there are many honest and decent Scottish students who will take up the loans—indeed, who want to take them up—and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that fact in mind before deciding how he should advise the House to vote on these amendments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) referred to the four-year course. I put on the record the fact that the four-year course is not unique to Scotland. About 23 per cent. of Scottish students do not take a four-year course. I complimented the hon. Gentleman earlier on his ability to deduct 23 from 100 and come to 77. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right with his


arithmetical triumph. Another reason why the four-year course is not unique to Scotland is that 22 per cent. of students in England are on four-year courses.
Let us go right to the heart of the argument about the four-year course. Maintenance is only a small proportion of the total cost of a student's course, accounting for less than 10 per cent. or perhaps only 8 per cent. Therefore, about 92 per cent. of the cost is borne by taxpayers—and mostly by English taxpayers. If Scottish students at Scottish universities are not prepared to take on the deferred liability for such a tiny proportion of the total cost, they are making a judgment that, to them, the extra year is not worth having. If that is the student's judgment, why should the taxpayer pay the other 92 per cent?
The four-year course is not under threat from Conservative Members, but it is clearly under threat from the arguments of Opposition Members.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have the honour to represent the oldest university in Scotland, of which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is a graduate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I believe that the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to take a four-year course, and no doubt with the frankness for which he is justifiably renowned he will tell the House in due course whether he received a grant for each of those four years. As I was saying, I listened with interest to his argument—

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because that is not the case. My education was financed by scholarships and bursaries won in competition.

Mr. Campbell: All that I can say to that is that the hon. Gentleman's frankness has been replaced by remarkable immodesty.
As I was saying, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument that, if the amendments were passed, the grant received by students in Scotland would be retained at precisely the same level as in the current year. If the amendments are passed, I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents, who no doubt have children who are students at Scottish universities and colleges, that the Government whom he supports are unwilling to increase those grants in Scotland. I suspect that as many of those who enter higher education in Scotland come from precisely the sources of support that the hon. Gentleman would seek to tap at a general election, he will have a stormy passage.
I wish to deal with the subject on a slightly broader basis. The four-year degree is not some arbitrary period of time that has been fastened on for historic or other reasons in the Scottish education system. The four-year degree course arises from the fact that the system of secondary education in Scotland is separate and distinct from that in England and Wales. Higher leaving certificates are a broader-based set of qualifications than A-levels, although not necessarily as advanced. They are broader because the tradition of Scottish education, as evidenced by the courses that four-year students take in their first year, insists on a wider education with less specialisation, at least at the outset. Whether that is inferior or superior to what is practised in England and Wales is neither here nor there for the purpose of the argument, but it is undoubtedly different.
9.30 pm
The system of secondary education is grooved to fit neatly into that of higher education. If grants are treated as the Bill proposes, and if that creates in the minds of people who might otherwise take four-year degree courses a desire to take only three-year ones because of a concern about the financial burden that may be laid on them, universities will feel bound to respond. I would not be surprised if, in the Scottish universities in which a four-year honours degree course is standard, working parties were already considering how four-year courses can be turned into three-year ones.
Such is the nature of the market influence, which the Government regard as so important in higher education, that Scottish universities will have to respond to an apparent change in demand. If they do so without considering the consequences for secondary education, we shall have a system that is mismatched to that of higher education. That would be extremely serious. There may be arguments about changing the system of secondary education. If so, let us have them here, but let us not, by stealth or implication, cause the material changes in secondary education in Scotland that a three-year degree course, as a matter of generality throughout Scottish universities, would necessarily imply. It is that feature of the proposals that the Government seek to persuade the House to accept that is much the most sinister and potentially most damaging for education in Scotland.
If we are to change these matters we should do so openly and avowedly. There is no real concern about whether the Scottish system of secondary education is changed. I do not believe that it is an oversight because I do not credit Ministers with such a lack of care.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone who taught at Heriot-Watt university for 12 years or more, I well understand why emphasis has been placed on four-year courses in Scottish universities. However, are we not in danger of overlooking the interests of those students who have to study for much longer than four years—for example, architectural and medical students?

Mr. Campbell: That point applies north and south of the border. Courses in veterinary medicine or medicine will undoubtedly result in the student having a higher degree of commitment and financial responsibility. At present, I am concerned at what appears to be a willingness to accept tacitly the potential for substantial change in the Scottish system of secondary education because of the Government's desire to institute a fundamental change in the system of higher education.
For these reasons, the amendments should command the attention of the House. It is frequently said, especially by Ministers in the Scottish Office, that the interests of the Scottish people are best served by the retention of a Parliament that has responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom. They frequently say that they are the guardians of the Scottish legal and education systems. Their support for the Bill and their unwillingness to accept the logic of the arguments made in support of the amendments makes the claim that they are the trustees for the people of Scotland no more than a sham.

Mr. John Marshall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and


Science, I am a graduate of St. Andrews university and I am somewhat appalled by some of the comments that we have just heard from the temporary hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), whose constituency contains St. Andrews.
We are really being asked by the Opposition to accept the argument that students who are intelligent enough to benefit from a course of higher education are not sufficiently intelligent to realise the worth of that education. That is an insult to their intelligence and it fails to recognise the thirst and enthusiasm of most people in Scotland for higher education.
The success of the Scottish four-year course has never been related to financial considerations. Any student who chose a four-year course at a Scottish university—I remind the House that 40 per cent. of all students at St. Andrews come from England where they could have chosen a three-year course, but they chose a four-year course at St. Andrews instead——

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There is an even higher level at Stirling university.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Lady is making my argument for me. All those who have undertaken that course have done so despite the short-term financial considerations. A four-year course has always meant an element of short-term financial sacrifice because the grant in the fourth year would always be less than what the student would receive as a graduate on the labour market.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Am I right that the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that a university such as St. Andrews should simply be filled with English students?

Mr. Marshall: I said nothing of the sort. One of the strengths of St. Andrews is that it attracts people from a wide variety of backgrounds, not only from Scotland and England, but from outside the United Kingdom. A university should be universal in its appeal, and that is what St. Andrews is.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I agree that universities should be universal, but the tragedy for Scottish universities at the moment is that they are being dominated by students from England at the expense of Scottish students and at the expense of overseas students for whom fees are cut.

Mr. Marshall: I used to sit in another Parliament where there was another Mrs. Ewing who also used to exaggerate. The hon. Lady exaggerates when she says that Scottish universities are dominated by English students. If she were to go to Glasgow university where I once lectured, she would find that the vast majority of students there come from a relatively small catchment area. If she were to go to Aberdeen university—I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the former Member for Aberdeen, South, come into the Chamber—she would find that the majority of students at Aberdeen come from the north of Scotland. If she were to go to Edinburgh university, she would find that a large number of students there come from Edinburgh and the surrounding areas. She would find that the vast majority of

students in Scottish universities are born in Scotland. They are Scottish students from Scottish schools. Therefore, her argument is false.
The amendment would have the perverse effect of encouraging Scottish students to go to English universities. Under the amendment, Scottish students going to a Scottish university would get no loan, but a Scottish student going to an English university would get a loan. Are we asking the House to approve an amendment which encourages Scottish students to go not to Glasgow, St. Andrews, Edinburgh or Dundee, but to Leeds, Essex, Nottingham or Warwick? That is what the Opposition are up to. It is nonsense.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), and start from the assumption that the Government will not listen to the strong arguments that have been made by Opposition Members. One of the great tragedies for Scottish education is that 1984 has come and gone, yet Big Brother still thinks that he knows better than the rest of us. If we in Scotland pride ourselves on our education system, it is pride in our traditions. We acknowledge that there are opportunities to better Scottish education, and in all the debates on the Bill we have argued that the Government's proposals will do nothing to improve Scottish education but will undermine it.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office should remember that Scottish education and the Scotish legal system are among the institutions that have mainly been responsible for maintaining Scotland's separate identity over the centuries. I have no doubt that the Bill and legislation affecting the Scottish legal system are deliberately being introduced by the Government to undermine Scotland's identity in respect of those two major institutions.
At a time when the House is looking to developments in Europe, it should acknowledge that Scotland's education traditions are much more suited to the European Community than those south of the border. If the Scottish Office put up a real fight for Scottish education, there would not be the same anger felt by right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies—but we see no sign of it. If there had been a statement confirming that Scotland's four-year university courses would not be pressurised out of existence, Scottish Opposition Members would have felt less depressed. There has been no clear statement to that effect from the Government, despite the many questions asked of Ministers by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. In an earlier debate, the Secretary of State made no clear statement of his view on the Bill's implications for the four-year degree course. If we could see the Scottish Office really fighting to ensure that Scottish universities became part of the international scene, Scottish Opposition Members would be less cynical, but it has taken no such stand.
I point out to the hon. Member for Hendon, South that many young people in Scotland pass their attestation of fitness and gather the necessary number of higher and O-grade passes, yet are denied access to Scottish universities.
That would not be so bad if universities south of the border were prepared to recognise their qualifications. Unfortunately, English universities, with only a few


exceptions, do not understand the Scottish education system, nor do they want to know about it. Consequently, our young people are denied access to them.
Scottish universities must be truly international. I have no grudge against students from England, Ireland or Wales coming to Scotland, but I should like to see a truly international dimension, with greater emphasis being placed on helping developing nations, but giving their students easier access to our universities rather than risk them being dominated by another culture.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Lady fails to pay tribute to the public higher education sector in Scotland, which has expanded enormously under the present Government.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman makes a facetious point, which I anyway find difficult to understand. Perhaps he will explain what he means.

Mr. Stewart: I shall try to explain to the hon. Lady. The public sector is the non-university sector—the other side of the binary divide, but if she does not accept the term, that is fair enough; I shall rephrase my question. Why does she fail to pay tribute to that important sector of higher education in Scotland—the non-university sector, which has expanded enormously under the Government?

Mrs. Ewing: I think that if I were to stray into a debate on the whole of the post-school education system, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressures are being placed on central institutions and other colleges to ensure that the courses offered are the ones that the Government pay for, for example, the Manpower Services Commission courses and YTS courses, rather than observing the traditions of best education in Scotland to offer a wider course. I can say that from personal experience, because I worked in the post-school system before returning to the House in 1987.
9.45 pm
If the Scottish Office were showing initiative in education, we might have a bit more time for it. We saw the interesting report produced by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, which studied the whole of post-school education. That report proposed an integrated system, but it was rejected by the Government. I have never understood why we have not been able to consider the entire post-school education system in Scotland. No real strategy for Scottish education is emerging from the Scottish Office. We do not have a Scottish committee that can spend time considering the Scottish education system. We do not have a Scottish assembly, where we can consider it, and we do not have a Scottish parliament. We have two parliament buildings in Scotland but we have no government, and as a result we have no real strategy or idealism for Scottish education.
We have not seen the Government make any major attempt to create jobs that would retain our graduates in Scotland. Eire and Scotland are the only nations in Europe that have a net loss of population. Independent surveys have proved the figures. Conservative Members representing English constituencies may laugh, but this is a major concern for any nation, because we have a net loss of population and there is a drift of the youngest and best away from our community. If there were an initiative to ensure that our graduates had real jobs at the end of the day, we might be more impressed.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Lady is rightly stressing the unique connection between Scottish and European universities. Is she aware that European countries that have introduced the system of student loans that is advocated in the Bill have found that it has elongated courses, as students take years off to earn money? It is now quite common for people to take seven, eight or even 10 years to get an honours degree. That is bound to discriminate against the traditional Scottish four-year degree compared to a three-year degree, and we shall find that it will take not three years but six or seven in future.

Mrs. Ewing: I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that he and I have been reading the same research documents. It is clear from the research in other countries where there is a loan scheme or a mix of grants and loans that students are taking longer to complete their courses, and there has been a decline in access for some sections of the population.
I agree totally with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about the traditional breadth of education in Scotland. People who are studying science are encouraged to learn a modern language—usually a European language—and students who are learning languages are encouraged to take a science subject for at least part of their education. I should be very depressed if we followed a system where education narrowed down at an early stage in a youngster's life. Breadth of education is important for each and every individual.
The Government's proposals will lead to pressure for shorter courses, and breadth of education will be forced out. The only principal who has suggested that we should curtail our courses is Mr. McNicol from Aberdeen university. He was roundly condemned by everyone involved in the education system, and all the literature that I have received from all types of organisations shows that we wish to maintain the broad four-year degree course in Scotland, and the breadth of the education system of which we are so proud.
The House would do well to listen to the arguments of Scottish Members, regardless of whether their constituencies contain universities. We are well aware of the anger felt in Scotland about the treatment of our education system, not just in the Bill but in the Government's actions in general.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I shall be very brief, as most of the points that I wanted to make have already been put very eloquently, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson).
There are many good reasons for excluding Scotland from this iniquitous Bill. Reference has already been made to the differences between the Scottish education system and the system that prevails south of the border. Scotland has a longer tradition of comprehensive education; we have a tradition of broadly based education in both the secondary and the post-school sectors. That is reflected in the fact that the Department of Education and Science has very little remit in Scotland; most of our education system is administered by the Scottish Education Department.
We often hear the Government boast that a Scottish Parliament is not needed to deal with such matters as Scottish education, because we already have administrative devolution. Under the present Government, however,


the Scottish Education Department simply acts as a rubber stamp for the DES. For instance, when the DES introduced an assisted places scheme for schools, the Scottish Education Department did likewise. In the post-school sector, when the DES put up fees for overseas students, the Scottish Education Department did the same in regard to the Scottish colleges for which it is responsible.
When the DES abolished the minimum student grant. so did the Scottish Education Department, although in theory at least it had the power to operate its own grant system: by and large, student grants and allowances in Scotland are administered not through the local authorities but through the Scottish Education Department. Now, instead of fighting this alien proposal, the Scottish Education Department simply rubber-stamps the initiative taken by the DES.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said that Scotland was not unique in having four-year degree courses—I think that he meant that it was not unique within the United Kingdom. It is unique to some extent, however: if a student in Scotland wants to take an honours degree course, he or she must study for a minimum of four years. I understand that that is not the case in most other parts of the United Kingdom, although it may apply to certain disciplines and universities.
The scheme will discourage many students from proceeding to a four-year course. That is why there is such widespread opposition to it, not only from students and their parents—many of whom have written to us—but from the university authorities, which are not always on the same side as the students. The rectors and presidents of the Scottish universities have also contacted us to oppose the Bill.
I urge the House to accept the amendment. I should prefer the whole Bill to be scrapped, but, if that is impossible, I should like Scotland to be excluded from the legislation, and I should like the existing grant system to be retained and improved. Sadly, the grant level has deteriorated since the Government came to power more than 10 years ago. We want it at least to keep pace with the rate of inflation, rather than being phased out and replaced by this crazy loan scheme. The scheme will discourage many students from proceeding to further and higher education, and those who take advantage of it will find that it becomes a financial millstone aroud their neck.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister address himself in the Scottish context to the questions which I put to the Under-Secretary of State and which were unanswered? The first was about the factual advice that the Government had received from the bankers. The second was whether the Scottish Office had an assessment of how the Government would attract teachers, clergy and others to the professions that were less financially rewarded, and whether an assessment had been made to see whether that was a problem. The third was whether the Government had consulted Scottish lawyers on the law of liability, it being Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

Mr. Worthington: Earlier this evening, we debated an amendment concerning a proposal for a review board for England and Wales and a review board for Scotland. The Secretary of State dealt with the case applying to England

and Wales and then said, in effect, "It will be the same for Scotland," and that was the only consideration that he gave the issue.
That has been the trouble with this measure all the way through. Opposition Members have pointed out eloquently that we have not just the feeling but the knowledge that Scotland is a separate and distinct nation and that a pillar of that nation is its education system. Indeed, the only reason for the presence of a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench is that there is something distinctly different about Scotland.
Unfortunately, time and again with legislation we have experienced the feeling that the Scottish education system is not being built upon from its roots and traditions but is being bent into an English shape. All too often English measures have been adopted in a Scottish context. That has applied to the assisted places scheme, the opting out schemes, school boards and universal testing.
We have had to take all that and we have had to take this Bill, even though it will do considerable harm to the Scottish education system. It will mean that students in Scotland will start paying for their education a year earlier than students anywhere else in the United Kingdom, because of the four-year degree system.
We in Scotland have a higher participation rate—I will not describe it as noble and brilliant, just as better—because of the Scottish education system. Particularly ironic is the fact that Conservative Members constantly say how much they admire the Scottish education system and only wish the English system was as good. Why, then, must we put up with English-inspired measures that do not fit the Scottish need? The amendment is designed to say, "Enough is enough."
We wonder whether this is the end of making students pay for their education. I am particularly worried when I think back to a visit I paid to the Under-Secretary earlier this year, when we discussed veterinary education. We were selling the merits of the Glasgow veterinary school. The Minister clearly thought the school was magnificent, but I got the impression that going through his mind was the thought, "If it's that good, people will pay for it," and they have started paying for it through the Page report.
We do not want the principle of people having to pay for higher education in Scotland, which is why we are asking that this and future Bills should not apply to Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): It is astonishing and depressing that the Oposition have so little faith in the quality and strength of Scottish higher education as to think that it would be damaged by the student loan proposals which will amount to less than 10 per cent. of the total cost of a student's higher education.
The amendments seek to distinguish in various ways between the treatment afforded to students domiciled in or studying in England and Wales and those in Scotland. Their practical effect would be anomalous in many ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the amendments would deny Scottish students the £420 advantage to be gained by English and Welsh students this year under the proposals.
Under amendment No. 9, students in higher education in Scotland outside the universities would not have access to the extra resources provided by loans, while those at university in Scotland could receive the benefit of loans. Under amendment No. 10——

It being Ten o, clock, the debate stood adjouned

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Education (student Loans) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

The House divided:Ayes 229, Noes 185.

Division No. 78]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Aitken, Jonathan
Evennett, David


Alexander. Richard
Fallon, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Amos, Alan
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Green way, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss. Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Devlin, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight. Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael





Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marland, Paul
Summerson, Hugo


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Ray


Rost, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, Sir William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Alton, David
Clay, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Baldry, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Crowther, Stan


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eadie, Alexander


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Buckley, George J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)






Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Nellist, Dave


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Mildred
Paisley, Rev Ian


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Heffer, Eric S.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hood, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hoyle, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Short, Clare


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lambie, David
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lamond, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ron
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Livsey, Richard
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAvoy, Thomas
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McCrea, Rev William
Turner, Dennis


McGrady, Eddie
Vaz, Keith


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert N.


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maclennan, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mallon, Seamus
Winnick, David


Marek, Dr John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, that the amendment be made.

Mr. Lang: It is typical of the muddle and confusion in the minds of Liberal Democrat Members that they should have sought to delay the House with that Division. Their muddle and confusion was reflected in the debate that preceded it. Within the space of a few minutes, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that student loans would lengthen degree courses, but the hon. and learned Member for Fife,

North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that they would shorten them. It is hardly surprising that Liberal Members have put their names to these extraordinary amendments.
Under amendment No. 9, students in higher education outside universities in Scotland would not have access to extra resources provided by loans, while those at university in Scotland would receive the benefits of loans.
Under amendment No. 10, students from north of the border would have access to loan facilities to study in England and Wales, while those from the south would apparently have access to a loan if they were studying at university but not at other institutions in Scotland. I cannot conceive of a system that would be more damaging to Scottish higher education.
Whatever the intention of the amendments, the long-standing convention is that support arrangements for students undertaking courses of higher education should be broadly the same throughout the United Kingdom. Although student support in Scotland is governed by different legislation and administered by a different Department, we operate on the principle of broad comparability of treatment. I am sure that that system is in the interest of Scottish higher education, and I see no reason to depart from it. To do so in the way proposed by the amendments would mean that some students would enjoy the benefit of additional resources, while others undertaking the same or similar courses would not. There can be no justification for such a distinction.
Much has been made of the disincentive effect of loans for students wishing to take the Scottish four-year honours degree, but the point has to be made yet again that four-year degree courses are not unique to Scotland; nor are all Scottish degrees of four years' duration. Any special provision for them would thus create more anomalies than it would resolve, particularly in relation to even longer courses, such as those for medicine and architecture, to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred.
10.15 pm
There is no sound reason for altering the basic principle that a loan should be made available for each year of the course, irrespective of its nature or length. A four-year degree course must by definition be more expensive than a three-year course, for all concerned: for the institution, the student support system, the parents and the student, in terms of both time and deferred earnings.
We allow the students themselves to make the judgment of additional cost versus added value, and we then offer them positive help to take the course of their choice. Students on four-year courses already receive more assistance by way of maintenance and tuition fees than their counterparts on three-year courses, and those students will enjoy the same positive benefits under the loan facility for each year of their course.
The threat that hon. Members perceive to the Scottish higher education system is not supported by the facts: the fact that the full-time student population has risen over the past decade in Scotland by around 15,000—an increase of over one fifth; the fact that the number of entrants to higher education has risen from around 18 per cent. of the relevant age group 10 years ago to over 21 per cent. by 1988 and that by 1991–92 it is on target for 23 per cent.—a level which our colleagues south of the border hope to reach by the end of the century. It is hardly surprising that


the Education Scotsman, on Wednesday 20 December, had a headline "Scotland reaches tertiary target a decade early".
Student award applications for 1989–90 are up over 70,000 for the first time, despite the demographic downturn. We in the Scottish Office, the universities and the central institutions are all planning and funding for a further increase in 1991. So to talk of closure of colleges as a result of the student loan system, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) did, is alarmist nonsense.
I do not believe that the prospect of an extra year's study and a somewhat larger loan commitment will discourage students who want to embark on a broad-based Scottish four-year honours degree course. We already know, for example, that some 25 per cent. of the students undertaking four-year courses at Scottish universities come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is evidence of the value which students attach to those courses. They accept the delay in entering the jobs market that the longer course means. I believe that they will be unshaken in their commitment by top-up loans.
I am in no doubt at all that a student's own perception of the nature and content of the course, together with his assessment of the value of the final qualification—a point very ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—will continue to be the most significant factor in the choice of institution and course. To suggest otherwise would mean that the additional year was of little value to students, and there is no evidence to support that theory.
For many years, we have had a broadly uniform system of student support in the United Kingdom. These amendments would end that uniformity and introduce a whole host of anomalies. They would be to the detriment of Scottish higher education, and I invite the House to reject them.

Mr. Wallace: I want first to take up what the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), said when he tried to make the very technical point that if these amendments were passed it would put Scottish students at Scottish universities and colleges, or those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom attending Scottish universities, in a different position, as they would not be entitled to the loans to which students attending colleges elsewhere in the United Kingdom would be entitled. In the strict technical sense that is true, but it is not possible for the Opposition, in framing amendments to this Bill, to make provision—because of the rules of which you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister are well aware—for the grant system to continue in Scotland and for it to be increased each year in line with inflation.
The Minister cannot be saying that if it is the will of the House that the loans scheme should not apply to Scottish institutions of higher education we shall be left high and dry. The will of the House would be perfectly clear—that the present grant system should continue in Scotland. If the Minister is saying that he will campaign throughout Scotland and say to the students in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that it will leave them high and dry, he is in for a rude awakening. I do not believe for one minute that that is precisely what he means.
When he resumed his speech after the vote on the business motion, the Minister said that there was a contradiction between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and my

right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Clearly, the Minister cannot understand the distinction between my hon. and learned Friend saying that many Scottish universities are considering the need to reduce their honours courses to three years and my right hon. Friend saying that the length of time that it would take students to complete that course might increase to six or seven years. Perhaps he was not paying attention. If that is the case, he should not try to make smart comments about those points.

Mr. Lang: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wallace: I see that the Minister is shaking his head. He was probably paying attention, so he cannot have understood the difference. Perhaps he should go back to university.
The Bill is a disgrace. On a later amendment, we shall focus on how little is in it and how much will be left for orders. There is little reference in it to Scotland. There are one or two passing references to Scottish legislation and Scottish places of education, but the only substantive provision relating to Scotland is paragraph 5 of schedule 2, which is headed "Insolvency: Scotland". It speaks volumes that the Government are having to make specific provision for Scotland in the context of debt failure.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Gentleman made the same point on Second Reading. Why is he delaying the House by repeating it?

Mr. Wallace: Because despite the fact that the Bill has gone through Committee, there has not been much improvement, so the point is worth making again, if only to underline it.
If the Government consider it right and proper, having regard to the distinctive legal system in Scotland, to enact separate legislation for major reforms to the legal system in Scotland, as distinct from that in England and Wales, why should one of the other great pillars of the Scottish nation—its education system—be lumped in with arrangements for England and Wales?
What depressed me most about the Minister's speech was when he said that, although Scotland had a four-year honours course, other places, too, had courses lasting for more than three years. He did not not seem to appreciate the importance and distinctiveness of that four-year honours course. Again, that must be the result of not listening. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East clearly illustrated how the four-year honours course in Scotland follows from a broad-based system of secondary education. The two are interlinked, so to take away what underpins one threatens the other. That is why Opposition Members, especially those who represent Scottish constituencies, are so concerned about the damage that we believe will be done to Scottish education if the Bill is passed.
Even if we accept the Minister's argument that there are other places where courses are longer than three years, we must wonder what will happen, for example, to teacher training. After four years, students will have to go through another year of teacher training, which will mean another year of debt round their necks before they start to earn—and we all know how little teachers earn, especially in the early years.
One distinctive feature of the Scottish university system is its four-year course and its broad base. Another is that


far more pupils in Scotland go to local authority-maintained schools than is the case in England and Wales. That is part of the Scottish tradition. As a constituent said in one of the many letters that I have received, education is not a privilege; it is a right. The Government seek to bring into effect in Scotland what is already the case in England, where education is seen as a privilege rather than a right. We fear that, by putting these financial burdens on students, youngsters from poorer homes will be unable to afford to take on the burden of going to university, or will think twice about it.
If Conservative Members do not believe me, I shall quote from a letter I received from a constituent at Edinburgh university. She said:
If these plans are implemented then students will lose all entitlement to housing benefit and income support. They will have their grant frozen and be eligible for a loan of £420 a year. Fortunately, I am in the position where I rely on my parents' contribution to finance my education. However, the proposals spell disaster for my colleagues and education in the future.
Not just the additional burden of loans but all the changes in housing benefit and the social security regulations, as well as the imposition of the poll tax, will make it far less attractive for Scottish students to go to university and fulfil their potential. Government policy is shortsighted in the extreme because it means a loss not only to individuals, which is important in itself, but to society and the community as a whole if those individuals cannot fulfil their potential and cannot add their skills to the wellbeing and welfare of the community.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) talked about developments in eastern Europe and the opportunities and challenges involved in them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale. Ettrick and Lauderdale made a similar point in his intervention. It is disappointing that in a letter which I received today the Minister of State said that provision would not be made from Scottish Office funds to enable a Czechoslovakian student, who has spent some time at the Anderson high school in my constituency, to take up a place at Glasgow university if he meets the academic requirements. It is said that where there is no vision, the people perish. I cannot imagine the West German, French or Italian Governments being so narrow-minded in regard to the opportunities opening up in eastern Europe. No doubt those Governments are welcoming eastern European students to their universities, but our Government are putting up financial barriers.
I conclude by disagreeing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East on one point. He said that if the Government are trying to change the system of education in Scotland, including secondary education, we should debate that here, and not through the mechanism of this tawdry little Bill. I do not believe that we should debate it here; we should be debating it in a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 201.

Division No. 79]
[10.26 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Anderson, Donald
Barron, Kevin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Beggs, Roy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Beith, A. J.





Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Livsey, Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boateng, Paul
McAllion, John


Boyes, Roland
McAvoy, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
McCrea, Rev William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McGrady, Eddie


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McWilliam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Madden, Max


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mallon, Seamus


Clay, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cohen, Harry
Martlew, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maxton, John


Corbett, Robin
Meale, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Michael, Alun


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Crowther, Stan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cryer, Bob
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dalyell, Tarn
Morgan, Rhodri


Darling, Alistair
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Uanelli)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Don
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dobson, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eadie, Alexander
Primarolo, Dawn


Eastham, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Redmond, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Fearn, Ronald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Foster, Derek
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Graham, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Stott, Roger


Harman, Ms Harriet
Straw, Jack


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Home Robertson, John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hood, Jimmy
Wallace, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Howells, Geraint
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hoyle, Doug
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winnick, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kennedy, Charles
Worthington, Tony


Kilfedder, James



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lambie, David
Mr. John Battle and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Lamond, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, George


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butterfill, John
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chope, Christopher
Hague, William


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hannam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Couchman, James
Harris, David


Cran, James
Hawkins, Christopher


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Curry, David
Hayward, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Day, Stephen
Hill, James


Devlin, Tim
Hind, Kenneth


Dorrell, Stephen
Hordern, Sir Peter


Dunn, Bob
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Durant, Tony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dykes, Hugh
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Evennett, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Favell, Tony
Jack, Michael





Jackson, Robert
Sims, Roger


Janman, Tim
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stern, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Maclean, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Trippier, David


Marlow, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walden, George


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, Sir William
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shersby, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'(5A) The powers to make orders and regulations under this section to amend Schedule I or to make regulations under Schedule 2 to this Act shall, insofar as they are exercised in order to establish a scheme, in the first year in which such a scheme is to have effect shall be exercisable by order within the terms of this subsection, and no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 17, in page 2, line 14, after 'section', insert
'other than any such orders or regulations falling within subsection (5A) above.'.
No. 18, in page 2, line 15, after `Act', insert
'other than those falling within that subsection.'.

Mr. Beith: The House will note the length and complexity of the amendments. However, their purpose is straightforward and important. They seek to ensure that the House can properly consider the student loans scheme that the Government intend to introduce. The whole process that this House and another place have gone through has, because of the character of the Bill, given us no opportunity to consider the Government's proposals—that is because the Bill does not contain the Government's proposals. In an extreme form, the Bill is characteristic of the desire of Ministers and civil servants to write the law as they go along. Hon. Members who doubt that that is the nature of the Bill should read it and they will see that it contains almost nothing except the power to make regulations.
The purpose of the amendments is to provide for parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations, of any changes to schedule 1, relating to courses eligible for loans, or of any changes to regulations made under schedule 2, which relates to the level of interest, the manner of repayment and the issuing of certificates. The amendments state that if in the first year of the scheme there are any changes to schedules 1 or 2 that relate to its establishment, they shall not come into effect unless they have been approved by Parliament. The amendments are protective in that they ensure that, if there is to be a change, it cannot be without parliamentary approval.
It is disgraceful that so major and fundamental a policy should be enacted by means of delegated legislation. That so significant a departure as the reversal of the practice of student support in this country should be brought forward on the basis of regulations made by Ministers is totally inadequate. That point has been made in this place and, vociferously, in another place, where it was one of the major criticisms of the Bill.
This is not simply a matter of academic interest. It means, although I understand from those Members who served on the Committee that the Under-Secretary of State did not seem fully aware of this at that time, that the scheme proposed by the Government cannot be amended. Is it incapable of amendment; there are no procedures for amending statutory instruments.
It is conceivable that the Government can bring forward a scheme setting out which courses are eligible for loans, the manner of repayment and the issuing of certificates that is wholly without fault or flaw? It is absolutely beyond the bounds of imagination that they can devise and draft a scheme that does not need amendment.
I invite Conservative Members, who have often proposed, and sometimes had accepted, amendments to Government Bills, to recognise that they will not have that opportunity when we consider the student loan scheme. The procedures are not available to the House, because the matter is being dealt with entirely by statutory instrument. I cannot understand Ministers who, when in opposition, complained about the way that legislation was being pushed through the House, putting their names to legislation that will not have proper scrutiny in the House. The problem is not merely that the regulations that implement every aspect of the Bill proceed by way of delegated legislation, but that they do so under the negative procedure. They are not required to be debated on the Floor of the House, and there is no guarantee that the House will have a vote.
Let us recall what you, Madam Deputy Speaker, know well: the procedure for the kind of statutory instrument under which every aspect of the Bill will be brought in. The regulations are devised by civil servants, and made by Ministers, and it is up to hon. Members to table prayers against them. Those prayers appear on the Order Paper and there is no guarantee that they will be debated even in a Committee. It is entirely within the hands and at the behest of the Government whether they give the House permission to debate the scheme under which student loans will be introduced.
Let us suppose that the Government decide to allow a debate on one of the dozens of statutory instruments that will spew forth to implement the scheme, but as they do not want a lot of fuss about it, they insist that it is held in Committee. They will put a motion on the Order Paper stating that the debate will take place in Committee.
What happens then, Madam Deputy Speaker? Wonder of wonders, if 20 hon. Members wish to object to its being taken in Committee, they can rise in their places to signify that. Consequently, it will not go to Committee. But do not assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that means that they will get their way and that it will be debated on the Floor of the House. The result will be that it is not debated at all. The Committee will not be set up and the House will be unable to debate the matter on the Floor of the House because the Government will still be under no obligation to bring this most fundamental of changes, and its major details, before the House.
Let us imagine that those 20 hon. Members, or many more, decide that since it is the only debate that they will get, they will not object, but consent to the Bill going into Committee. The matter will go upstairs to Committee, and for one and a half hours those Members chosen to serve on the Committee can debate the scheme. Any other hon. Member can take part in the debate. But if, during those proceedings, it becomes clear that the whole thing is a complete mess, first, there can be no amendment and, secondly, if the entire Committee draws the conclusion that the Government have made a hopeless mess of the drafting of this part of the scheme, there is no way in which it can pursue that objection. They could, if they felt so inclined, resolve that the Committee had not considered the instrument, and from time to time that has happened. But the consequence nevertheless is that it is reported to the House that the Committee has considered the instrument. It is not even reported to the House that the Committee has decided that it has not considered the


instrument. The fact that objection was made by every Member of the Committee never appears on the Order Paper.
10.45 pm
Let us also suppose that in the meantime the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, chaired by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has, as it does with all statutory instruments, looked at the matter in some detail and discovered that there is an abuse of power or an unusual use of power in the way that the Government have drafted the important student loans scheme. That would not be unusual. It has happened three times in the past few weeks. All that would appear on the Order Paper is a notice that the Joint Committee has drawn the attention of the House to the instrument, but that notice does not give rise to any debating time or any proceedings.
If an hon. Member has taken the trouble to go to the Vote Office, read the report and discover what has, in some recent cases, been severe criticism of the way in which civil servants have drafted statutory instruments giving rise to an abuse of power, he has no opportunity to draw it to the attention of the House because you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were in the Chair, would be obliged to put the question forthwith on that statutory instrument. The only information before the House is that the Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to the instrument.
It is even possible, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will recall from an incident about 10 days ago, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not even had time to get on to the Order Paper the fact that it has considered the instrument and wishes to draw the attention of the House to it. We had a case recently where the matter was brought before the House for a vote before the Committee could get that information on to the Order Paper.
So we have the major features of the Government's much vaunted, cherished student loans scheme. A Committee has considered the merits of the instrument and has voted that it is rubbish, but all that it has been able to do is to vote that it has not considered the instrument. Then the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considers the use of powers in the scheme, considers the matter and has drawn attention to the unusual or improper use of powers under the scheme. Neither of those facts is before the House when it is required to vote forthwith on the instrument. That is an absurd procedure, of which Ministers are well aware.
Ministers may claim that the House should change those procedures, but so long as the procedure is so inadequate, how dare they put the whole weight of the student loans scheme on so creaking a piece of machinery? Ministers know the inadequacy of those procedures. They know the importance of the issues raised under the procedures in the legislation. So why did they not at least accept the pleas made in Committee, including pleas from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who spoke eloquently on the subject, that we should have affirmative instruments for the major matters?
If Ministers are not prepared to go that far, why cannot they go at least as far as our amendment, which has the limited effect not that all subsequent changes to the scheme

have to go through the affirmative procedure, but that at least the first time that the original scheme is introduced it should be properly debated in the House?
It may not be understood or recognised outside the House that, unless we amend the Bill, we are putting in place today arrangements under which the whole character of the student loans scheme will be precluded from parliamentary debate, amendment and proper consideration.
The Government seem happy that that should be so. That is an outrage and it is not without significance that it was this Bill, and that feature of it, which was so widely quoted in another place when a prominent Conservative, a former Secretary of State for the Environment., Lord Rippon, drew the attention of Members to the disgraceful practice of widening the ability of Ministers to legislate by delegated legislation. Again and again, the Bill was instanced as the worst example to date of that practice.
There are records of those who argued before the second world war that Parliament should have the power to bring about radical change unencumbered by the representatives of class interests on the Tory Benches, who otherwise would seek to prevent such changes from taking place. That argument was made by the Socialists, some of whom asserted that Parliament should have powers allowing Ministers to sweep through the radical changes that they saw as being necessary for society. Today, Conservative Ministers are taking the opportunity, which the Socialists never seized for themselves, to make laws up as they go along. The House should never consent to such a practice in respect of any major issue, and the Bill is one such issue.

Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on an extremely well-informed and powerful speech.
It is wrong for the major part of the scheme to be incorporated in legislation that is unamendable in this House or in another place. When I did a paper on the British constitution, I was informed that statutory instruments were reserved for subordinate or secondary legislation. But there is nothing subordinate or secondary about the Bill, which will be brought before the House and rubber-stamped—if anyone is allowed to pick up the rubber stamp—under the scheme.
As we know, the Bill is merely an enabling measure, with one operative clause and two relatively minor schedules. The rest of the scheme—for which no precise parallel exists in this country, and for which no parallel exists in any other country—will be established by delegated legislation that is neither subordinate nor secondary.
In the 20 October debate, on Second Reading, and many times in Committee, the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary sought to justify the Government's abuse of delegated legislation by claiming that the scheme used for the Bill was the same as that adopted for the Education Act 1962, which set up the present grants system following the findings of the Anderson committee the previous year.
I hope that the Under-Secretary has identified the fundamental difference between the Act and the Bill, but I shall place it on the record so that the Minister does not attempt to draw that parallel again. The 1962 Act made one change and one change alone. It transformed the discretion that local authorities had to make grants into a duty. Discretion had existed since the Education Act 1944.


After 18 years' experience of that legislation, all the Anderson committee did was to say, "We believe that the various discretionary arrangements that exist throughout the country should be turned into a mandatory, uniform scheme."
Section 1 of the Education Act 1962 therefore states that it shall he the duty of a local education authority to make a mandatory grant. The rest of that legislation was subordinate, laying down how that duty should be undertaken.
That is completely different from the Bill, which begins not by imposing any duty, which could not only be tested in this House and in another place but continually in the courts, by becoming a justiciable matter; instead, the Bill imposes a power on the Secretary of State, enabling him to make any arrangements that he requires in establishing a loans scheme. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, all that is to be brought forward.
No right hon. or hon. Member believes that every jot and tittle of Government decision-making should be subject to an elaborate procedure in this House. We all know that that is not the real world.
There are some decisions that are made by ministerial fiat, and it is appropriate that others should be made by regulation, subject to negative procedure—although I accept the criticisms that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the inadequacy of that procedure.
I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts that there are other decisions which are in the nature of primary legislation, which for one reason or another are not in the primary legislation but which ought, at the very least, to be subject to the affirmative order procedure. It is not asking very much. We are only asking that, before decisions are made, they are brought before the House and there is an hour and a half of debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I both pursued this matter strongly in Committee, and he will be well aware that one of the Government's arguments was that they did not want a compulsory debate every year because of a minute alteration in detail. The argument for the amendment tonight is that, at least in the first year, when we have seen nothing, there can be no argument against the whole package coming before the House.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reinforce the fact that all the arguments against having such a debate every year fall, because we have not seen the scheme. This amendment has a one-year operation period.

Mr. Straw: I agree with the hon. Member, and congratulate him on his ingenuity in drafting an amendment to enable further debate on this important issue on the floor of the House, after it has been debated at some length in Committee.
The affirmative order procedure is hardly a foundation stone of our parliamentary democracy. It does not allow great scrutiny or amendment, but it changes the nature and quality of decisions that Ministers and officials make. Officials know that what they are serving up will have to go before the House. A Minister has to stand up and justify it, and not have his reputation wrecked through reading out an inadequate brief—all of us have seen that from time to time, but I exclude the Under-Secretary from

that. Therefore, the nature and the quality of the decision taken will be better than it would have been under subordinate legislation.
This issue was discussed at some length in Committee. I hope that the Under-Secretary accepts the strength of feeling about it. The amendment is outwith the merits of the student loan scheme. We are not trying to pin the Under-Secretary down. By accepting the amendment, he is not accepting our criticisms of the scheme. He can have all the loan scheme he wants, of the kind he wants, subject only to the approval of the House. That is what we are asking for—that this scheme is legislated on with proper respect for our democracy.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will think again before insisting that the whole scheme should be subject only to the negative procedure.

Mr. Jackson: We had a good debate on these issues in the Standing Committee, and I recommend hon. Members who are concerned—I think we understand the reasons why they are concerned, because high constitutional issues are at stake—to read the account of discussions in Committee.
It will be apparent to anyone who reads the proceedings of the Committee that the Opposition—not only the official Opposition, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was fighting a distinguished campaign on behalf of his party—in the course of argument recognised that it would not be appropriate to put all the details of the scheme into primary legislation. That was accepted and borne out by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It seemed to be the premise of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that it would be desirable to have all the details in primary legislation, but the Committee moved beyond that.
The general view of the Committee was that it would be quite acceptable to have most of the legislation in the form of resolution by negative procedure. My hon. Friends supported me in my rejection of amendments at the conclusion of the debate, and it was decided that it would be reasonable to proceed by negative procedure, although the Opposition sustained the argument that there should be an element of affirmative procedure, and that is reflected in tonight's debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is important to put two points on the record. First, the Opposition voted for the procedure that we are now recommending whenever the Committee divided on the issue. Secondly—as I hope the Minister will be fair enough to concede—we argued strongly that, when we did not know the details, it was imperative, now and in the future, for important issues to be dealt with by Parliament in a way that automatically allowed for debate. We never conceded that there should be no guarantee of debate, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, there is no such guarantee under the present arrangements.

11 pm

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is being fair, and I am not trying to score a point, but I think that hon. Members will agree that the position changed. At first the Opposition said that the regulations should all be subject to primary legislation, but it was later accepted that they should be dealt with by resolution. There was then a


division of views over how much should be dealt with by affirmative resolution and how much by negative resolution, and it was, I think, accepted that much of it should he dealt with by the negative procedure. That, indeed, is the spirit of the amendment, which suggests a negative procedure in later years and an affirmative one in the first year.
We must see how our debates develop, to establish whether the concern described by the hon. Gentleman really exists, but I believe that there are powerful arguments of principle against what he proposes. First, we have become used to operating under the negative resolution procedure for some 30 years, under the Education Act 1962. The structure of the Act, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred, is identical to that of the Bill: the only difference is between imposing a duty and taking a power.
I should have thought that it was more in keeping with the constitutionalist view urged by Opposition Members, and with the spirit of the House of Commons as they see it, for a power to be given—a power that may or may not be exercised—than for a duty to be imposed. Moreover, the procedure whereby every year a mandatory awards regulation is subjected to negative resolution before the House or in Committee has not prompted any complaints; it has worked in an entirely satisfactory way. The document in question is 37 pages long, and is amended regularly. All sorts of detailed points emerge in the course of the year. A graphic case was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): we all call it the Podger amendment. The negative resolution procedure has worked perfectly well with student grants, and we believe that it will work equally well with loans.
The hon. Member for Blackburn described the Bill as sketchy, but that description is not accurate. It determines the way in which the power can be used in considerable detail. Schedule 1 contains a list of eligible courses, which can be changed only if Parliament does not object. Schedule 2 requires the Secretary of State to provide for zero real interest, and to set out the amount of the loan and the arrangements for repayment, deferment and cancellation. All that is to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Schedule 2 also contains regulations to cover the arrangements to be made with the Student Loans Company, or any other company, for the administration of the scheme. In fact, the Bill contains more detail than the 1962 Act: the argument that it provides excessive discretion simply does not stand up.
Although I generally defer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who is an expert on parliamentary procedure, I do not believe that affirmative resolution would add much to the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if there were some power to amend under the affirmative procedure, but the same position applies to both affirmative and negative procedures. Parliament has the opportunity to vote the regulations down in either case.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has made two incorrect statements in the space of two sentences. First, far from my having argued that there was a power to amend, part of the burden of my speech was that there was no such power under either of the procedures that we are considering. I had the impression that the Minister had formed that view

in Committee and had become confused about the matter, but he is clearly not confused now: he realises that the scheme cannot be amended.
The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that items coming under both the affirmative and negative procedures were subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The second part of my argument was that they were not necessarily subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure, and that the Government had the capacity to prevent them from being debated under that procedure.

Mr. Jackson: I misheard the hon. Gentleman. I thought his argument was to the effect that one could amend under the affirmative resolution procedure. The fact remains that, whether by way of the affirmative or negative procedure, there is not the facility to amend, so I do not see any great advantage in the plea that Opposition Members are making.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the negative procedure, the matter does not come before the House, unless a prayer is tabled, and prayers are never heard. We in Northern Ireland have suffered from that. The Minister should make the position absolutely clear.

Mr. Jackson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be willing to hear any prayer that he has to offer, and my hearing is very acute.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Minister do more than hear it?

Mr. Jackson: I should seek to answer it, too. But there is some dependence on the Opposition in the matter. It is perfectly possible under the negative procedure for matters to be brought before the House, if the House so wishes.

Mr. Straw: The Minister has not had the benefit—I do not say this in a mocking sense—of any period in opposition. We hope to correct that in a year or so, but meanwhile, Conservative Members who have been in opposition will know, as we know, that there is a profound difference between regulations brought before the House under the negative resolution procedure and those brought under the affirmative procedure.
The Under-Secretary does his argument no good by suggesting that there is no difference. Indeed, if he believes that there is no difference, why not concede the case and have the affirmative procedure? There is a difference. It is that the affirmative resolution procedure requires that the matter be debated, whereas with the negative procedure it is at the Government's discretion whether the matter is heard.

Mr. Jackson: I shall be willing to accept tuition from the hon. Gentleman should I find myself in opposition, and I derive great benefit from the instruction of the way in which he handled himself in Standing Committee. I repeat: it is possible for these issues to be debated on the Floor of the House, whichever of the two procedures is followed.

Mr. Beith: In that case, will the Minister explain why so many prayers tabled by hon. Members do not get debated, either on the Floor or the House of in Committee? Will he explain, for example, why the prayer against the regulations under which it ceased to be required for


garages to display petrol prices in price per gallon, even though that prayer was signed by a large number of hon. Members——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hardly think that is relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Beith: I was asking the Minister why prayers such as that, which had the support of many hon. Members, are not debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jackson: You are right to point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that matter is not within my competence. It is a matter of agreement whether such matters come before the House. On one occasion, I took the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations through a Standing Committee. On other occasions, that instrument has not been prayed against and it has not been necessary to adopt that course.
I have no doubt that if the Opposition, and we, wanted this matter brought before the House, perhaps on the first occasion, it would be possible to agree to do that, without necessarily adopting the amendment to bring it within the affirmative resolution procedure.
There are further practical arguments against the amendment. We agreed on the previous amendment that we should proceed to implement the scheme as from the autumn of this year. It is necessary to press on with that. There would be problems of finding parliamentary time under the amendment. The Government have no desire to short-circuit parliamentary procedure. A negative resolution can be voted down, but we have to make the new system clear to students and others, so it will be necessary to proceed quite swiftly after Royal Assent to adopt the proposals by secondary legislation. The proper way of dealing with that is through the negative resolution procedure. We need to be able to make the regulations and orders quickly after Royal Assent if we are to be ready for September 1990, so I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in rejecting the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I wanted only to ask the Minister: if clarity is the purpose, why does he think that a debate for one and a half hours would not assist him? Is it not rather that he wishes to obscure?

Mr. Wallace: I shall respond briefly to the points that the Minister made. He gave no convincing reason why the amendment should be resisted.
No doubt any student of constitutional law who can afford to go to university after the passage of the Bill will be told that one of the purposes of the House of Commons is to check the Executive. That is increasingly becoming a big lie. It is becoming less possible for hon. Members to carry out our duty to keep the Executive in check.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Minister's speech was the impression he gave that the negative procedure should be the norm. Many people who believe that we are here to keep control of those in government would resist that notion. Nevertheless, legislation has increasingly introduced statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. That means that there is less opportunity for the official Opposition, and other Opposition parties and Back Benchers to pray against statutory instruments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave a pertinent example when he referred to the statutory instrument on the description of petrol prices. It attracted support from both sides of the House, including the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, yet despite that, it was not debated on the Floor of the House or in Committee, because it was not convenient to the Government. Increasingly, more power has been put into the hands of the Government, and it is our duty to resist it whenever we can.
The Minister tried to suggest that what has happened to the awards scheme under the 1962 Act should be the model for what we are about to do. The 1962 Act, inasmuch as it made it mandatory for local authorities to give grants, conferred a benefit on students. The amendment does not aim to deal with the merits or demerits of student loans, but anyone would accept that a loan represents less than a grant. If one approaches one's great uncle for some money, one would prefer a straight grant to a repayable loan, so the scheme is taking something away from students. That is an important distinction.
The Minister seemed to suggest that the present system is a method of fine-tuning the engine, and that our annual debate represents an MOT. The amendment deals not with what will happen year after year but with what we want to happen in the first year, before the scheme comes into operation. If the Minister is saying that it will be debated and we will agree it, he has absolutely nothing to lose by accepting the amendment. The fact that he does not do so gives us sufficient cause for suspicion to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 158.

Division No. 80]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Kennedy, Charles


Battle, John
Kilfedder, James


Beggs, Roy
Lamond, James


Beith, A. J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Bermingham, Gerald
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McCrea, Rev William


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McGrady, Eddie


Callaghan, Jim
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McLeish, Henry


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maclennan, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clay, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L.


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fearn, Ronald
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rowlands, Ted


Gordon, Mildred
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheerman, Barry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel






Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stott, Roger
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Straw, Jack
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.


Wallace, James



Wareing, Robert N.





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Amos, Alan
Grist, Ian


Arbuthnot, James
Ground, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Atkinson, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Batiste, Spencer
Hannam, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harris, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Bowis, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brazier, Julian
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunter, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carttiss, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Couchman, James
Maclean, David


Cran, James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Day, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Needham, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dunn, Bob
Norris, Steve


Durant, Tony
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dykes, Hugh
Pawsey, James


Emery, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Evennett, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fallon, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Favell, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forth, Eric
Shelton, Sir William


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Freeman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


French, Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodlad, Alastair
Summerson, Hugo


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gow, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Thorne, Neil


Gregory. Conal
Thurnham, Peter





Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Trippier, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Wheeler, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Roger Stott: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert—
'No Order in Council purporting to bring into force a scheme of student loans for Northern Ireland shall be made under paragraph 1(I)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out 'except for section 2'.

Mr. Stott: We now move to the part of the Bill which deals with the provisions for Northern Ireland. It is becoming a habit to do so at such a late hour. I would that it were different, but it seems to be an established pattern.
As we are dealing with Northern Ireland, may I, on behalf of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland team and my right hon. and hon. Friends, offer our deepest condolences to the wife and family of Harold McCusker, the late hon. Member for Upper Bann, who died on Monday and was buried yesterday? He will be sorely missed by those of us who knew him and respected his integrity.
This clause is extremely controversial, for two reasons. First, it deals with a constitutional issue, which I will touch on in a moment. Secondly, it will have an adverse effect on students in Northern Ireland, a Province that is quite different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The constitutional arguments were forcefully brought out in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I have read the Hansard transcript of that debate and the Minister's response to my hon. Friends' points and—if I could have the Minister's attention for one moment—I have to say that the procedure by which this scheme is being introduced in Northern Ireland is wholly unacceptable.
It is unacceptable because, only recently, we had before the House the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which changed the system of education in Northern Ireland very dramatically. It was almost a mirror image of the Education Reform Act 1988 in the rest of the United Kingdom. But all that Northern Ireland's representatives had was a three-hour debate in the Chamber, at this time of night, which ended at 2 o'clock in the morning. There were no amendments and we could not interrogate the Minister on his proposals. The order was put forward wholly undemocratically.
Provisions for Northern Ireland are difficult. There is no devolved Assembly. Once again, from the Dispatch Box, on behalf of the Opposition I make the plea to the


elected representatives of Northern Ireland to find a way, with the Secretary of State, to achieve agreement so that these and related matters can be dealt with properly, not by the House of Commons, but by a properly constituted, devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. That might be asking a little too much, but at least in my innocence I ask that, so that we do not have to repeat these arguments time and time again.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his place this evening as we discuss this important matter.

Mr. Mallon: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is implying that, if there were a devolved administration in the North of Ireland and if this matter were being considered there, the North of Ireland would have arrangements with regard to its education budget that would not be tied by legislation here. I assume that that is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If so, it should be put on the record, especially when we anticipate what may happen after the next election.

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend has asked me to respond to that question. I hope that he will allow me to develop my comments about our view of the present procedure and how we believe it should be dealt with. I do not want to delay the House on a pedantic point.

Mr. Mallon: I certainly do not want to delay the House. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot ask Northern Ireland representatives to create an administration in the North of Ireland to deal with this ourselves, but not put it on record that, if we create such an administration, we shall be given the power to deal with it ourselves. I want to see that on record from the Government and the Opposition.

Mr. Stott: I have no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will try to catch your eye a little later. As I understand it, under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, there were provisions for certain matters to be determined by the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which education was one. As the Assembly does not exist, the Secretary of State can make Orders in Council to do what he wishes on education. Had the Northern Ireland Assembly still been in existence, I should have thought that this matter could have been referred to it and could have been dealt with there. I shall expand on that point a little later if my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed.
Even listening to previous debates, I have realised that there is a consensus that the Order in Council procedure leaves much to be desired. The Bill makes it worse. The 1974 Act is the basis for government in Northern Ireland. Transferred matters are defined as issues that are within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State can exercise the powers of the Assembly. The logic of the 1974 Act is that transferred issues, of which education is one, should be handled in such a way as to take local conditions in Northern Ireland into account. I stress the words "local conditions" because they are very important in the Northern Ireland context. They should not be subsumed into United Kingdom law.

Mr. Mallon: rose——

Mr. Stott: I will not give way again.
Clause 2 not only makes the already unsatisfactory Order in Council procedure worse, but undermines the concept of transferred matters. I understand the arguments about devolution in Northern Ireland, but in regard to the principle, the 1974 Act should not be tampered with until agreement is reached on a new system of government for Northern Ireland. Clause 2 seeks to put the nonsense in the Bill into operation by the use of the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Mallon: We must be precise about this. I take it that the import of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that, in matters pertaining to Northern Ireland, any future Northern Ireland Assembly would have power to legislate on reserved matters. Would that apply not just to education but to social security, health and agriculture? We have to be consistent, or the hon. Gentleman's case falls very quickly.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting points have been raised by the hon. Gentleman, but they go beyond the amendment.

Mr. Stott: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman raising the issue when the debate is confined to education. Education was a transferred power. I do not know why the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is giving me such a hard time, because I am on his side on this. I share his view that the procedure being adopted in the Bill is unacceptable. I have outlined for the record what should have happened.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am on the side of the hon. Gentleman on the negative resolution procedure, as he knows, but the point that is being put to him is that more than education was transferred to the Assembly. He must go through all the matters that were transferred and say exactly the same about them as he is saying about education. I am not on the side of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on that, but we are dealing with the facts of the 1974 legislation.

Mr. Stott: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would not allow me to go down that road.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made that point.

Mr. Stott: I have outlined the position on this measure, and I think that I have done that forcefully.
I have already acknowledged the presence of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland has read in Hansard the debates in Committee. He wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the points that were made. I want to read out one paragraph. This is the nub of the issue:
Orders in Council by negative resolution are used sparingly. We only proceed by this route when, first, the matter concerned is transferred and should, therefore, be on Northern Ireland's own statute book; second, the Government wants parity throughout the United Kingdom (the provisions of the Order have to correspond to the provisions of the Bill); and third, when it is necessary for the provisions to apply in Northern Ireland soon after the GB Act comes into effect. Affirmative Orders, on the other hand, tend to take about two years to complete.
He goes on to make several other points. By using the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure,


the Government are attempting to avoid constitutional scrutiny of a measure that has no support in Northern Ireland.
We were wholly justified in raising the matter because of the special circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The fact that it is left to negative resolution means that it does not come before the House at all. Therefore, discussion in the House is abandoned.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that was the point that I was making. He has simply reinforced the point for the record. When we discuss Northern Ireland matters, which are difficult and complex, Northern Ireland elected Members on both sides of the House genuinely feel that this is an unsatisfactory way of passing legislation that has a profound effect on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. That was the point that I sought to make.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is not present. That is regrettable, but I recognise that he has been there for a long time. In Committee, in response to points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hillsborough and for Derbyshire, North-East, he said:
I must tell the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) … that I found his remarks bordering on the offensive when he implied that the Government are introducing discriminatory legislation in Northern Ireland. That is not so. The hon. Gentleman constructed the argument that women and Roman Catholics will be discriminated against by the operation of student loans. I do not accept that argument; it is speculative, and does not support the accusation of discrimination. Neither do I accept the premise on which it is based."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B. 18 January 1990, c. 365–66.]
My hon. Friend was commenting on statements and written articles by people in academic circles in Northern Ireland who have studied the potential impact of this legislation on students in Northern Ireland.
The Minister should understand that the circumstances in Northern Ireland are wholly different from those anywhere else. The proposals will impact adversely on the entrance into higher education of women and Roman Catholic students and the already significantly underrepresented Protestant working-class groups.
The Minister should be careful about his language when he deals with Northern Ireland matters. He should not accuse my hon. Friend of basing his arguments on a flawed premise. If he does, he will show his complete ignorance of the complexities that are special to Northern Ireland.
My colleagues gave many examples in Committee of the way in which the legislation will have serious and long-term implications for Northern Ireland students. I do not intend to rehearse those arguments tonight, although I have no doubt that others may wish to do so.
11.45 pm
One group that will be disadvantaged by the legislation are mature students. The introduction of loans will restrict educational opportunities for older students. According to the White Paper, students over 50 will have no facilities to borrow finance and they will be expected to find the top-up portion from their own resources. Although the 1990s will witness a declining population of 18 to 20-year-olds, and the Government have accepted the need to attract greater numbers of mature students and other non-traditional

entrants, mature students under 50 will certainly be deterred by the prospects of substantial repayments spread over a shorter working life.
It is a gross discrimination to exclude those over 50 from the proposed scheme. It is deplorable that mature students, often with long records of national insurance contributions, will be prevented from claiming social security benefits, including unemployment benefit, while at college. What then is the incentive for mature students to return to college and retrain and re-educate themselves?
The other problem that is pertinent to Northern Ireland is that the Northern Ireland institutions suffer a loss of high-quality students through migration to institutions throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, the salaries in the south of England are probably better than those in the Province, graduates will be able to pay back their loans more easily if they take work outside Northern Ireland rather than return to Northern Ireland to put their time, effort and skills into the economy there.
I am conscious that it is late and that many other hon. Members may want to speak, but I advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I would say this to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science if he were present—that evidence relating directly to Northern Ireland tends to reinforce the view that the proposed loans scheme will increase public expenditure, provide a disincentive to potential entrants to higher education and force students into further debt.
At the very least, the Government should postpone the implementation of the scheme in Northern Ireland until its impact has been adequately researched and considered. If they do not, I genuinely fear that they will be doing a singular disservice to students in Northern Ireland, and the long-term consequences could be disastrous.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a big and serious issue. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is on the Treasury Bench to hear the debate and, we believe, to answer it. We from Northern Ireland welcome that, because this matter goes right down into the depths of our society.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that I regret that religious discrimination has been brought into this matter, because I believe that the provisions affect the Protestant working classes just as much as the Roman Catholic working classes. I am also afraid that some Republican elements are trying to drive this issue as a wedge between both working classes and to put certain people off supporting the grants. I made that point perfectly clear to the students when I met them.
I also made it perfectly clear that at our party conference we unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the legislation, because we felt that the students of Northern Ireland needed all the help and encouragement that they could get. I feel strongly about that.
My party believes that this issue goes right across the board and that it will have equally detrimental effects upon, womenfolk and on the Protestant and Roman Catholic working classes. It will affect how students make their choices, because they will choose those professions that will bring them more money quickly in order to pay off their loans. That means that arts students and others in similar educational and professional spheres will not be in abundance. That is sad, and it will be detrimental to Northern Ireland.
There is a constitutional issue involved in this. I am delighted that the House, after many years, is convinced about the undemocratic nature of the Order in Council procedure. I have been in the House when nearly all the Benches have been vacant, with perhaps two Labour Members, two Conservative Members and the rest Northern Ireland representatives. We always protested as we stood up that once again the Order in Council was being put through the House in an undemocratic manner.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an eloquent speech tonight. I hope that the issue will be carried on to the Northern Ireland constitutional debate, because we feel strongly that it is entirely unfair to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to have no say about the laws that govern the Province.
It seems a great anomaly that I can stand up in the House and move an amendment to the laws that govern England, Wales and Scotland, but cannot move an amendment for the people I represent. The House must come to grips with that anomaly eventually, because we cannot continue to govern Northern Ireland by Orders in Council. Sooner or later, the system will come unstuck. We are now seeing the extent to which the Executive are taking the powers of the House and using them in far-reaching regulations that should be discussable, amendable and debatable in the House.
I have been in the House 20 years and I remember very few prayers coming to it. If there is such opposition from the Government of the day to having them debated, there is little chance of them being accepted, so the procedure is a disgrace to the democratic structures of the House.
These far-reaching regulations will not even be subject to one and a half hours debate. When we talk about one and a half hours or three hours, we have to take out the time that the Government take to present them. They are entitled to present their business, and the Opposition have to do their job and give their view. When that time is taken out, there is not much left for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to discuss the matter, and other Members are also entitled to speak.

Mr. Flannery: I do not want to rehearse all that I said in Committee, but I want to reiterate something that the hon. Gentleman has said. The last time that we debated an Order in Council, I had sat for three months on the Education Reform Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends remember that, after all that time, the Education Reform Act 1988 was applied to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council with 202 pages, 10 schedules covering 36 pages, and 167 clauses. On that occasion we had three hours for debate. Under clause 2 of this Bill, we cannot even do that. That is such a violation of democracy on the sensitive issue of Northern Ireland that it shows a complete lack of any proper feeling among Conservative Members about the problems of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman and I are poles apart politically and we have often crossed swords on a Northern Ireland issue, but on this issue we are at one. These matters should be discussed in a proper manner, amendments should be moved and there should be an opportunity to vote on them.
No Government, no matter how good they may be, can bring an Order in Council to the House and say, "This is it. You can't amend it. We couldn't improve it. It's so good, it is infallible and you must accept it." Such infallibility is not the democracy that we need. We need discussion on every matter.
Even the Secretary of State must admit that the Government now see the weaknesses in the Orders in Council that they have brought to the House, but what can they do about them? If it takes two years to get an Order in Council through the House, would it not be far better to introduce a Bill?

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the Orders in Council that has been referred to, and which we found particularly obnoxious, was the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) described as a replica of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was not quite a replica, because it contained matters such as education for mutual understanding, matters that were appropriate to Northern Ireland. If it had been a replica, it would have been dealt with under the negative resolution procedure, and we would have been unable to debate that.
According to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), one of the conditions for the negative resolution procedure is that the measure achieves parity throughout the United Kingdom. If a measure is a replica of what has happened elsewhere, there will not be an opportunity to debate it under the affirmative resolution procedure in the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: These are serious matters, and they need thorough discussion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we did not get a proper reply from the Minister on the education order. Some of the things that he said could not have stood up if they had been challenged in debate. He misled the House on many things in that debate. That is why representatives from Northern Ireland felt angry and frustrated. That order changed the structure of our schools. Northern Ireland has excellent schools, and before the House pulls something down it should put something better in its place. However, we never had an opportunity to discuss that matter.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said that the education order contained arrangements for education for mutual understanding, which was applicable in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that education for mutual understanding is equally, perhaps more, applicable to many areas of Great Britain?

Rev. Ian Paisley: We all need to understand one another mutually. Having sat in the House for 20 years, I know that each and every hon. Member needs educating on that. We cannot say that Northern Ireland needs it and nobody else does. Mutual understanding goes to the heart of a parent's right to say what way his or her child should be educated. Yet a child can be directed by a teacher not to tell his or her parents where he was taken on a particular day. I tried to raise that matter on the Floor of the House in our previous debate. It needs to be discussed.

Mr. Mallon: We should agree that there is a problem with the way in which legislation is dealt with here, but that surely should not prevent us from debating legislation when it does come before us.

12 midnight

Rev. Ian Paisley: People hold differing views on that subject. I believe that such matters should be debated in a proper devolved Assembly. I was interested to hear what was said tonight about the powers that will be given to that Assembly. No doubt the Secretary of State will be reminded of those remarks. As a politician, the right hon. Gentleman knows that, if he is in the kitchen, he must take the heat—and the heat is usually pretty severe when it comes from Northern Ireland and from both sides of the Northern Ireland divide.
In no way am I, as a public representative from Northern Ireland—any more than my Northern Ireland colleagues, no matter of what particular hue—in a position to influence the legislation that is being passed tonight. It rests with the infallable pontiff, the Secretary of State, to make his decree—and all must abide by it. That is obnoxious to me religiously, and it is certainly obnoxious to me politically.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), whom we all greatly respected and who will be much missed from the House.
I do not believe that the student loans scheme will provide adequately for students generally—and certainly not for those from low-income families in England, Scotland and Wales or Northern Ireland. The scheme will create worries and concerns about debt. Some students struggling to stay outside the debt trap may suffer impaired health because of the sacrifices that they will no doubt make in order to live within the resources available to them without incurring debt through the loans scheme.
The scheme will deny many students from low-income families across all sections of the community the opportunity to enjoy a college or university education. Mature students also will he denied that opportunity, and many young women students will be deterred from entering higher education. In Northern Ireland, we believe that, when an educated young woman becomes a mother, she can be a tremendous influence on the next generation, which she will bring up to respect and appreciate the education opportunities for self and family improvement. All elected representatives from Northern Ireland firmly believe that education represents the best investment that we can make for our young people's future.
A consequence of the scheme will be that students from many families will decide privately not to embark on a course of education that will necessarily require them to enter into debt and perhaps become a greater burden on their families. It is not in the best long-term interests of the United Kingdom as a whole for any of our young people who are capable of successfully completing college and university courses not to realise their full potential.
Northern Ireland has an increasingly aged population, and it is the young who will help to ensure a reasonable standard of living for our pensioners in the years ahead. We must support them adequately during their courses of study, whether they last for three, four or five years—or more. They should not be compelled to accept second-best courses so that they may start earning money sooner.
Within Northern Ireland, there are areas where more than 40 per cent. of the male population are unemployed. In the continuing absence of Northern Ireland unemployment figures from the statistics covering only Great Britain parliamentary constituencies that are placed in the Library, I trust that right hon. and hon. Members accept that fact. The loss to students of unemployment and housing benefit will be felt more acutely in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There are fewer opportunities for the young to find employment, and the number of unemployed there is already high.
In keeping with our opposition to Northern Ireland business being debated by Order in Council procedure in the House—whether it is by negative or affirmative resolution, my colleagues and I are completely opposed to the business of legislation going through the House by unamendable Order in Council—we shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Time is short, so I shall confine myself to a few remarks, but I should like first to pursue the constitutional matter of democracy in Northern Ireland.
Autocracy is crumbling in eastern Europe, but we have had confirmation tonight in the Chamber that we do not have full democracy in Northern Ireland, because the Secretary of State rules by decree, and that is not acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
The Order in Council procedure is unacceptable, and that has been stated time and again in the House on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. The answer has always been that that is the way that Northern Ireland must be governed, since the people there cannot agree.
Tonight in the House, representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, from all political parties, are in total agreement that the scheme is unacceptable and ought to be rejected. Since all the Northern Ireland Members are in agreement on that score, surely the Government should heed our united plea that the scheme should not be pursued there.
I adopt what has already been said about the Order in Council procedure—it denies the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to debate thoroughly legislation for the Province. That is why I shall welcome the day when we can have a Northern Ireland Assembly once again so that such matters can be put before representatives there. I know that they would decide to reject the scheme. It will cost the United Kingdom more than the existing grants. Whether the Government wish it or not, it will be so costly that grants will be in real danger of being abolished. I think that in due course the Government will impose a means test for loans.
One of the criticisms is that the Education (Student Loans) Bill will transfer resources from those who need help the most to those who need it least. I think that many deserving students, who should have access to further and higher education in Northern Ireland, will decide to forgo that training and experience rather than be saddld with a debt that they fear they will not be able to repay within the foreseeable future.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the philosophy, "Spend now, pay some time later", is a dangerous one to encourage young people to adopt?

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree. The people of Northern Ireland like to pay their bills when they fall due. It goes against the grain for most people there to contemplate a system whereby they accept a loan and it is hanging over their head. They worry about whether they will ever be able to repay it in full. A student whose family is affluent will have no such anxieties, and will be able to accept any burden of debt regardless of potential—although that does not necessarily mean that he will repay the debt. The scheme will penalise the less well-off, and I find such discrimination intolerable and unacceptable.
We must invest in our young people by ensuring that they are encouraged to enter further and higher education. Although a small percentage of students may act irresponsibly, the vast majority, at least in Northern Ireland, are eager not only to improve themselves educationally and to secure greater opportunities, but to make a worthwhile contribution to the community in which they live.
The scheme will harshly affect many students in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency in particular. Ulster's future depends on its young people: we must encourage them to pursue education opportunities, rather than deter them. At the weekend, one of my constituents—a student—told me that the prospect of incurring a £2,000 debt was frightening, especially as that was an enormous sum for him and his family. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Scott): many young people will leave the Province for the affluent south-east to secure a job that pays enough to help them to pay off the loan.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is it not unrealistic to talk of loans as small as £2,000? Many, if not most, students nowadays are having to borrow large sums from banks at commercial rates to complete their education, and the extra loans could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back—particularly in Northern Ireland, where wages are lower.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree; I was merely quoting what one student said to me.
I think that all Northern Ireland Members agree that the loans scheme will rob Northern Ireland of its talent. Some people will leave, never to return; others will be deterred from pursuing further education by the thought of enormous debts hanging over their head. A brain drain would be detrimental to the Province: we need all the talent that we can get to rebuild it and make it into the prosperous place that it ought to be.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that any scheme for student support must be adequate, certain, simple and socially just. The scheme fails all those tests abysmally, and it ought to be rejected.

Mr. Mallon: Let me refer briefly, in connection with what was said by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), to what is becoming the constitutional aspect of the debate.
Sometimes we Northern Ireland Members become slightly impatient: we are continually being exhorted to do certain things, and it is continually implied that if we do those things certain consequences will derive from our actions. As the Secretary of State is present and will be able to give a definitive reply, may I ask him whether, in the event of devolution, powers relating to agriculture, social security and education could be exercised if they were at variance with the primary legislation applying in England?

It is a good time in the political life of the North of Ireland for the Secretary of State to take the opportunity to clarify that point. We await his reply with interest.
12.15 am
I feel particularly strongly about this piece of legislation because I probably came from a vintage that was too late for the advantages of the old system of education and too early for the advantages of the new. The point that was made earlier in an altercation with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was valid because I see this whole issue in two terms, especially in Northern Irish life. The scheme will pose a question to the person from a less affluent background. He or she has two choices, either to borrow or to go out to work to get the money. I know from personal experience of building sites in this city—I have more than a passing acquaintance with loft deep trenches in which I laid cables—that once we put people in that position, we are taking from them something important in educational terms, and that is student life. It is a crucial part of education.
It is not simply a question of what is learned in the classroom or at lectures. The whole being of student life is part of the learning process. The Bill will take that away, certainly in Northern Ireland, because people will have a choice. They can do what I had to do—come here and work for three months in the summer on building sites or laying cables—or, under this legislation, borrow money. It is estimated that, after a three-year course, they will owe at least £6,000.
Imagine entering a career owing that amount of money. That will be a big millstone around the neck of a young person starting out, especially in the North of Ireland, where few ever reach the 85 per cent. of national average earnings on which consideration of the repayment of loan is based.
We keep missing the crucial point, that we are damaging the education system by taking away that aspect of student life from young people. We are—if I may be permitted a flight of fancy at this hour—replacing the tranquillity of the groves of academe with the stress, noise and bustle of the Rialto. We are replacing Hamlet with Shylock. I stretch the metaphor further, to when Hamlet was debating this very point with Horatio. He said:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I make that point seriously, because it is crucial in any discussion of the educative process as opposed to the learning process.
I am opposed to the Bill for other reasons, including the fact that it brings the market mentality into the education system, where it should never be. I am opposed to it because of the damage that it can do to the individual and, through the individual, to society. It is the creation of rolling privatisation within education. It is the creation of a debt culture at a crucial age which, in many cases in the North of Ireland, could remain with people for the rest of their lives. It is happening in youth training programme schemes in Northern Ireland. The courses change when market forces are imposed upon them. That is crucial in the context of Northern Ireland.
In earlier discussions with the hon. Member for Wigan, I was trying to make the point that Northern Ireland does not have parity with the rest of Britain. In almost every respect, it is parity minus. We have the highest unemployment, the lowest average wage, the highest social


security dependency and the highest costs of basic materials such as food, energy, heating, electricity and transport. When this measure bites in Northern Ireland, it will intensify the differential between social security arrangements here and in Northern Ireland. Because of that differential, the majority of parents whose children go on to third-level education are one third poorer before they start.
It has been a bee in my bonnet ever since I came to the House that there has never been any attempt to redress that differential in terms of education or social security legislation. Yet we were told that, if we were good boys and agreed to devolution, we would be able to take those decisions for ourselves.
Does anyone believe that we would be in a position to create a social security structure for Northern Ireland, an agricultural arrangement which depends on the EEC or an education system which would be antipathetic to this one? We should be honest about what devolution means for us. The Bill is brutal in terms of Northern Ireland, because we start off one third poorer and the further we go the poorer we get.

Mr. Stott: I have listened intently to my hon. Friend. Although we had a slight problem in our interpretations of the constitutional question, I put it on record that my two hon. Friends who were members of the Standing Committee pointed out the special differences that apply in Northern Ireland and the disingenuous way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). My hon. Friend will recognise that I said at the Dispatch Box that the special circumstances of Northern Ireland make the legislation even worse.

Mr. Mallon: Of course I accept that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising it today and in Committee.
Parity is of no use to people in Northern Ireland. Parity is an injustice, because invariably it is parity minus the advantages that exist in England, Scotland and Wales. I am not making a political or ideological point, but to talk about parity for Northern Ireland is to do an injustice to the people there.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The electricity tariff is a good illustration of the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Mallon: Electricity is about 33 per cent. dearer, and there is no mains gas at all. We all know the advantages of mains gas over electricity.
On the cost of administering the loans scheme, we have two sets of figures—the Price Waterhouse figures, and others that dispute them. There can be no dispute that Price Waterhouse did not allow for the default rate of about 10 per cent. and for interest subsidy which, in Northern Irish terms, probably comes to about £150 million. There is also the fact that there will be no ultimate cumulative saving to the Exchequer until the year 2092. The Minister is smiling. No doubt he will contradict what I have just said, but if what I have said is taken as a starting point, it has to be admitted that many people are right to say that it would be much better to give students grants than to squander such an amount of money over such a period on administering a system that is doubtful in the first place.
What will the cost of borrowing mean to people? The Minister shook his head when I quoted the figure of £6,000 in the case of a person doing a three-year course outside London. Perhaps the Minister, when he sums up, will be able to confirm that the cost, in terms of loans, to a person studying medicine in London, from start to qualification, will be about £14,000. That figure should be confirmed.
If the Minister disagrees with it he will certainly be in dispute with Dr. Nicholas Barr, a very senior economist at the London School of Economics. When Dr. Barr's analysis is set against that of Price Waterhouse, there is no doubt about whose figures I accept. However, the Minister will have an opportunity to enlighten us.
The point has been made that the proposed scheme will have a tremendous effect on access to higher education. Cormack, Osborne and Millar, writing on behalf of the Policy Research Institute in Belfast, say:
Our estimate, based on extensive survey research, is that the proposed loans scheme will diminish participation rates, particularly among those Mr. Baker has targeted for special attention.
Who are those people? To start with, they are females. The Policy Research Institute has produced the figures. According to the institute, 49·1 per cent. of females take up and participate in higher education. But in the case of those in the manual work sector—the less well-off—the figure is 30·6 per cent. By contrast, in the non-manual work sector—those who are much better off—the figure is 69·3 per cent. That is the root of the problem.
These proposals will hurt most where people, whether Protestant or Catholic, slot into the manual work sector. A problem has arisen as a result of religious labels being applied to economic definitions—manual or non-manual. Let me remind the House of the figures: 39·6 per cent. compared with 69·3 per cent. That is the injustice of the system. People without financial status are being asked to borrow heavily in a way that is totally alien to their experience and their cultural background. Places will not be taken up, and the manual group figure will go down substantially. The less well-off will be most vulnerable. That is a euphemism; what I am really saying is that the less well-off will be frightened off by the system, and the number of people from that background in higher education will fall substantially.
The system will also force Northern Irish students to study in Northern Ireland. That is inevitable, but it is a very bad thing. For 20 years I was involved in education, and I constantly advised young people, "Go somewhere. Go anywhere. There is a different world out there. There are different values. It is an exciting world, compared with what you will see daily in the North of Ireland." It would be a tragedy if, because of the loss of income support and especially because of the loss of housing benefit, students had to remain in the North of Ireland, where the education system would become increasingly introverted, which must be bad.
Another bad feature will be inflated university admission figures. If more people stay at university, admission levels will increase artificially and people at the lower end of the education scale will be unable to take advantage of higher education.
The loans scheme will be a problem in England, Scotland and Wales. It will be a nightmare in the North of Ireland because of students' different levels of ability to pay when they have finished their degree or higher education courses.
12.30 am
The touchstone is that 85 per cent. of students graduate in Great Britain, whereas the percentage in the North of Ireland is 69·2 per cent. Those figures are readily available from the Department of Education in the North of Ireland. Of that 69·2 per cent., 58·2 per cent. are male, which shows the discrepancy between male and female achievement. To extend the argument, using not religious but social and economic terms, the figure for the Protestant community is 69·8 per cent. and for the Catholic community 75·2 per cent. The reality is that that 69·2 per cent. will not receive 85 per cent. of the average wage in England, Scotland and Wales. Is that just? One can keep asking whether there is any element of justice in any of these things.
The repayment scheme will be a nightmare in the North of Ireland. Debt will determine the destination of graduates. At present, 9·3 per cent. of students graduating from Queen's university, Belfast, which is one of the best universities anywhere, and 17·7 per cent. of students graduating from the university of Ulster, another excellent university, either take short-time work or become unemployed. The figure for the university of Ulster is the same as the overall figure for unemployment in the North of Ireland. They are not getting the full-time, stable jobs which would offer some justification for introducing loans instead of grants.
Earlier in the debate—it seems many hours ago now—the Secretary of State for Education and Science mentioned what the loss of housing benefit means to a student. I understand—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may be able to confirm these figures later—that a student aged between 18 and 25 in the North of Ireland who pays rent of £30 a week will lose £139·46p a year in housing benefit. A student over 25 paying £30 a week will lose £267·52. That is out of very little to start with. These are people who have to borrow the money, yet this is what they will lose in housing benefit.
The loss of income support falls into the same category, because it is not compensated for by the amount of loan allocated for the summer vacation. People in the 18-to-24 age range have £27·40 income support for 14 weeks, which is £383·60; so with the loan working out at £110, that is a loss of £273·60. For the over-25s it is even worse—a loss of £378·60.
The figures speak for themselves. The Minister and the Secretary of State earlier gave global figures about the millions of pounds going into the system to replace this and that, but that is what young people in Northern Ireland will lose.
One can say cynically that those people should spend the summer working to get money to help them to continue their studies. That is quite true and many young people now feel it necessary to do so. But can anybody tell me where they will find that work in Northern Ireland? Where can a male student get any kind of work in summer in the North of Ireland? It simply is not possible. In the North of Ireland, education has always been the only alternative to the emigration boat or the dole queue. Now the student finds that, to cope with that loss in the summer months, the only thing for him is the emigration boat.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the dabate. I listened with

great interest to the eloquent contributions by hon. Members from Northern Ireland, who know the situation there so intimately.
It seems to me that two main points arise in this part of the debate. The first is the increased detriment that the student loans scheme brings to young people in Northern Ireland. We have heard that described with great clarity, in particular by the hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Those of us who have children who are going through those vital teenage years when we wait anxiously for their examination results and look at other people's throughout the country, look with some envy at the results achieved in Northern Ireland, where secondary education standards are extraordinarily high. But those children in Northern Ireland are faced with a particularly difficult decision at the age of 18, when they ask themselves whether they can go on to higher education.
I notice from the statistics that I have read that, for every 350 children in England and Wales who are asking that question and who could not expect any parental financial contribution, there are 450 children in Northern Ireland who cannot expect any parental contribution. Putting it another way, although perhaps with a little hyperbole, poverty already contributes to the education deficit in Northern Ireland faced by young people who might wish to go on to higher education.
We know that there are, historically, political differences between England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as social and economic differences. All those differences contribute to making the student loans scheme much harsher for young people in Northern Ireland and, of course, for their parents in advising them, than for students in England and Wales.
My particular concern and interest in clause 2 is in the constitutional aspect. It is rightly clause 2, for it provides second-class legislation for Northern Ireland. I had always understood—and I think that we all agree—that Northern Ireland is entitled to its own legislation on major issues. It has its own legal framework and its own constitutional conventions. One of those conventions is that it has its own legislation.
The Government are indulging in a constitutional swindle against the people of Northern Ireland. They are producing, time and again, second-class legislation for those people. Why should the inhabitants of Northern Ireland put up with such second-class legislation? Why do the Government consider that Northern Ireland Members—and English, Scottish and Welsh Members who, like myself, are interested in the affairs of Northern Ireland—are not qualified to consider clause by clause and line by line legislation such as the student loans scheme for Northern Ireland? There seems to be a logical fallacy in what the Government have done in the Bill.
I had hoped to see devolved government coming quickly to Northern Ireland—a devolved government to enable hon. Members in the House and others to go line by line through legislation such as this in Committee. They do not have that opportunity. What should the Government logically do? It is clear. Unless there is a new constitutional theory about the quality of Northern Ireland legislation, a theory that gives only such second-class legislation, surely the Government should have either included the Northern Ireland legislation in full in the Bill or brought in a


separate Bill for Northern Ireland, so that Northern Ireland Members would be able to amend, debate and consider the legislation fully.
We know what happens in Committee compared with what happens on the Floor of the House. If, under the negative resolution procedure, there is a debate on a Northern Ireland order, it is taken in the spirit of a Second Reading debate. The Government issue a three-line Whip, the Opposition parties issue a three-line Whip, we all troop through the Lobbies, and it becomes just another part of the sacred political drama in which we indulge night after night in the House and which often does the House little credit.
If we were to have the opportunity of this legislation for Northern Ireland being considered in Committee, the nuances of debate in Committee would enable Ministers to make concessions that they cannot make in a procedure such as Second Reading. Committees enable them to fine-tune the legislation to the particular conditions under discussions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: That might be the normal process that one would expect to operate in Committee, but it did not operate in the Committee on the Bill. There were no amendments apart from three technical amendments, which prompted a debate of one and a half columns in the 580 columns of debate on the remaining issues. The Government put on the Whips, battened down the debate and pushed through the measure because of its nature.

Mr. Carlile: There should have been separate consideration, line by line of provisions affecting Northern Ireland. Conditions are quite different in Northern Ireland, and so are the considerations for Committee stage. I apprehend that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom we all regard as a kind and reasonable man, might have responded to an analysis such as the Committee might have offered.
For me and my hon. Friends, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the constitutional issues in relation to the previous series of amendments, which received praise in his absence from Conservative Members—-in which I share—applies even more strongly here. We should be allowed to consider this legislation for Northern Ireland as legislation, not just as a statement. In clause 2, we have a statement of immutable Government policy, which is not acceptable.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There are three main reasons for welcoming the debate. First, more Back-Bench Members have been here for the debate than are usually here for debates late at night on Northern Ireland issues. Debates on Orders in Council usually take place between hon. Members on the two Front Benches, some Northern Ireland Members and one or two other hon. Members. Tonight, other hon. Members have been listening to the debate.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that there is fantastic unity in the Province on the issue being debated. Members of the four political parties from Northern Ireland have spoken with a common voice. The representative of the fifth party, who chooses not to be here, would speak in the same way. The trade unions, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fair Employment Commission, universities and other

bodies, as well as the political parties, probably with the exception of the Conservative party which is trying to emerge in Northern Ireland, adopt a common position both on the fact that there is something wrong with the procedure and on the substance of the student loans proposal. They are all adamant that the measure is incorrect for Northern Ireland. That point has been made clear in the debate, as it was in Committee.
Thirdly, I welcome the fact that all hon. Members who have spoken have taken a common position. That must make it awkward for the Government to respond, especially when other hon. Members have expressed the same view as Northern Ireland Members. To introduce elements of the enterprise culture and cash nexus in an area where there are such strong divisions, and where we need to encourage unity and co-operation, is disgraceful. There is a host of measures which are problematical for England, Scotland and Wales which should not be introduced for Northern Ireland without proper consideration and scrutiny by Northern Ireland Members.
In Committee we were not fortunate enough to have a Minister from Northern Ireland present. When we came to clause 2, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who speaks on education in Northern Ireland, should have been present temporarily to respond to the points made. The best endeavours were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who is very knowledgeable about these matters, by our Front Bench spokesmen and by myself, but because we do not have day-to-day experience within Northern Ireland, it was a case of the blind leading the blind, especially as the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who did not have experience of Northern Ireland matters either, was responding to the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact also that no Northern Ireland Member was a member of the Committee?

Mr. Barnes: I argued that in Committee. That further illustrates the problem. There were no Northern Ireland representatives, just as there were no Ministers with Northern Ireland experience to respond to the debate. We had as good a debate as we could and drew on what experiences we had but by its very nature, it was a second-class debate. That has altered tonight. There has been full involvement in the debate. Having the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here has meant that at least we have concentrated minds on the issues.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) described Northern Ireland legislation as second-rate legislation. Does he agree that one of the reasons why it is second-rate or second-class legislation—I take the two to be the same thing—is that Ministers and indeed the whole House, are deprived of the educational process that takes place in any Committee? Only by that educational process on Bill after Bill will there be a full understanding of Northern Ireland circumstances and their nuances in the House.

Mr. Barnes: Clearly that is the case for everyone involved. It would be of benefit for Northern Ireland Members to be involved in that process, to put forward arguments and to receive answers so that a growing understanding could emerge from the dialectics of debate.
An illustration of the problems that we faced is that, following the contributions made by Opposition Members in Committee, we received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough. In my case, it was three pages long. It defended the Government's position on positive and negative resolutions on Northern Ireland measures. About the procedures, it said:
I think both sides of the House would agree that they are not ideal.
That implies that something needs to be done, although what needs to be done is not clear. It goes on to say why and in what circumstances there are negative and affirmative resolutions. A similar version to the one that I received was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott).
Mr. Robert Cormack, Mr. Robert Osborne and Mr. R. L. Miller were contributors to the documents of which I made use in Committee. Ministers argued against what they said by saying that they could not establish the things that they were claiming, and that estimates were involved. The estimates were based on an analysis of information.

Mr. Mallon: That may be the position. Now is the opportunity for the Secretary of State to put it on record whether those figures are right or wrong.

Mr. Barnes: Interestingly, part of the other evidence that I used was a survey that had been conducted among sixth formers. Again, I was told that that survey did not prove what I claimed, and that the Government had conducted the research. The letter failed to mention—I have researched the matter—that Cormack and Osborne were involved in the production of that information. Cormack and Osborne and their associates produce regular documents about education in Northern Ireland, and about higher education developments. Presumably their expertise was used by the Northern Ireland Office to draw the relevant information forward.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is ridiculous for Departments in Northern Ireland to criticise any figures presented by those who conduct surveys when they cannot give figures, for example, on the number of disabled young people in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Barnes: I agree that the whole basis on which we had the discussion was inadequate.
The letter to which I referred showed in what a nonsensical way we were proceeding. There we were in Committee with Ministers who could not respond to us because they did not have the relevant experience. When the Committee was over, we all received a letter. Letters are not the ideal way to sort out details of arrangements. The points contained in the letters should have been part of a Minister's brief, which we could have argued and discussed, so that the dialectics of the debate could take place.
The arguments that show that there are extra problems in Northern Ireland that make the student loan scheme inappropriate have been fully ventilated. In addition, there are special characteristics and problems about the participation rate in higher education of working-class Catholics and Protestants—problems which are greater

than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are also more women in education in Northern Ireland. The legislative element also comes into this.
It will be more difficult for graduates in Northern Ireland to reach 85 per cent. of average wages and so to begin to pay back the money. Perhaps, when the Government reflect on these things, they will decide that that they will have a different percentage for Northern Ireland from that which operates elsewhere. If that is the case, they will be putting forward different measures for Northern Ireland, in which case they should do so under its own rules of the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I join the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in what he said about our late colleague, the hon. Member for Upper Bann, Mr. McCusker. I have paid tribute elsewhere to his courage in discharging his constituency duties most notably when in the grip of a terrible illness, and I repeat those words tonight.
At the end of his speech in which he moved the amendment, I heard the hon. Member for Wigan say that he hoped that the Government might postpone the implementation of the Bill in Northern Ireland, I detected from those observations that he was seeking to exclude Northern Ireland from the Bill, by means of his amendment. It will not affect my response to the debate because we have had a good debate, but in practical terms the amendment would not have the effect that he has described. It would mean that the scheme would apply and be operated in Northern Ireland—he will see references to Queen's university, Belfast and to the university of Ulster in clause 1—but it would have been administered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and his Department rather than by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member for Wigan was putting an argument which, in the constitutional jargon of the Northern Ireland debate, might have been described as "integrationist", which is a novel thing to emerge from the Opposition Benches.
I said that I would respond to the essence of the debate regardless of the terms in which hon. Members have spoken. The hon. Member for Wigan quoted what the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) wrote to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith): a letter which the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) have also received, although perhaps not in exactly the same terms.
My hon. Friend stated the circumstances in which we use the negative procedure in these matters. The essential issue was that the provisions that we would be deploying in Northern Ireland were the same as those deployed throughout the United Kingdom; that there would be parity throughout the United Kingdom, so the wording of the Order in Council that we would bring in from the Northern Ireland Office would closely follow the wording deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, who took the Bill through Committee.
I shall come back to this issue, but I believe that there are—and have been over the years—considerable advantages to Northern Ireland in having the same grants and other procedures for the maintenance of higher


education as those that have obtained throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall not go into precise detail on that, because I should not wish to be greatly on the record in a place where Her Majesty's Treasury might see my words, but there would be reasonably common agreement that Northern Ireland has benefited considerably over the years from being part of a national scheme.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised the issue of discrimination, which had come up in Committee. It arose from a letter that Mr. Cooper of the Fair Employment Agency wrote to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, last year, to which he received a reply. My hon. Friend sought to dispel the suggestion that the legislation was discriminatory.
I shall return to some of the implications mentioned by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Wigan also referred to the academic articles, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East came back to them. I pay tribute to the valuable work done by Mr. Cormack, Dr. Osborne and Dr. Miller. I have had the opportunity of seeing the extensive work that has been done.
1 am
I think that there will be agreement, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in his letter to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, that in the end the forward prognostications have to be speculative. We can work from the data that we have, but precisely what the effect will be is something that we shall be able to test only by results. The Government's position, in terms not only of Great Britain, but of Northern Ireland, is closely and consistently to monitor what is happening. The trends in Northern Ireland towards participation in higher education. which are considerably higher than those in the United Kingdom as a whole, do a great deal of credit to the Province, and I hope that they will continue.
Alarming observations were made by various hon. Members during the debate, suggesting that dire and apocalyptic consequences would follow from the measure. Having once held the position held by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage, I must say that Conservative Ministers have listened to warnings of all the apocalyptic things that were supposedly going to happen during the past decade in this sphere. Consistently, the age participation rate and the qualified participation rate have continued to rise, and increasing numbers of students have come into higher education.
In the context of Northern Ireland, the observation was made when we changed the regulations governing travel arrangements for students in 1984—a measure in which I played a part—that this would reduce the number of students travelling to universities in Great Britain. However, the numbers of students going to Great Britain have continued to rise during the subsequent six years.
The hon. Member for Wigan spoke about mature students above the age of 50. I acknowledge that there is a cut-off point at 50, but for mature students below that age the proposals provide a considerable incentive. Their present commercial borrowing will be substituted by borrowing with a zero rate of interest.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me a warm welcome to the debate, but towards the end of his speech offered me the poisoned chalice of describing me as an infallible pontiff—a phrase which, I fear, will haunt me. He talked of the constitutional and general legislative position. The length of time spent on

Northern Ireland concerns in Committee—I had the pleasure of reading the proceedings—and tonight's debate contradict the claim that Orders in Council by negative resolution do not allow Northern Ireland concerns to be aired.
I sympathise with hon. Members for the fact that tonight's debate started at 11.30 pm, but the debate has already lasted 90 minutes. I agree, and the Government accept, that the temporary legislative provisions for Northern Ireland are far from ideal. We should like such matters to be considered in a devolved Northern Ireland administration, as has been apparent.
In the meantime, I repeat what has been said before from this Dispatch Box, that I shall gladly meet Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and discuss Northern Ireland's legislative procedures with them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I may not have caught it correctly, but I think that the Secretary of State said that tonight's debate illustrates how we can discuss matters under the negative procedure. We are not under such a procedure tonight. We are on the Report stage of a Bill. That is entirely different from the negative procedure.

Mr. Brooke: We are on the approach road to a negative procedure. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Northern Ireland representatives do not come here just to give their views an airing? We object to Orders in Council because we cannot amend legislation that is being applied to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: Of course I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. I sought to do that in the observation and the offer that I made earlier. I should be the first to acknowledge that there are unsatisfactory features, but at present one Parliament is being asked to do the work of two, and that creates complications.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I shall not give way again.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North then came back to the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, as did other hon. Members. The consultation on that order was allowed a significantly longer period than a normal order because of its wide implications for the schools system. A large number of responses were received, and they led to a significant number of changes in the Government's proposals. I advance that not as a rationale for the Order in Council procedure, but just to show that it is possible to amend legislation in advance of its presentation to the House.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) came back to the issue of mature students. I repeat my observation about the benefits of the proposals to mature students below the age of 50. I agree with him on the admirable trend in the participation of women in higher education in Northern Ireland, which again exceeds that in Great Britain, and in a sense sets an example to the rest of the country. The number of graduates obtaining employment on leaving Northern Ireland universities to all intents and purposes matches the number of such graduates in Great Britain.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) sits on the Government Benches but occasionally, as this


evening, does not wholly agree with the Government's proposals. I thought that I caught him saying that we would soon have a means test for grants. We have had a means test for grants since my father, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, introduced the 1962 proposals, to which Opposition Members referred.
The hon. Gentleman showed an undue lack of confidence in the people of Northern Ireland in his remarks about saving and borrowing. Again, Northern Ireland leads the rest of the country in the capacity for savings on the part of those who live there.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made a seductive siren suggestion, that I should be taken right outside the terms of the debate in the same way as he was seeking to involve the hon. Member for Wigan. I would be offending the spirit of the House if I were to get into that at this time of night, but I repeat my remarks about monitoring and parity. Where he got the year 2092 for the year when savings would begin to accrue to the scheme, I am not quite sure, since annex E of the White Paper has the year 2002, but I acknowledge that, if one adds administrative costs, it will take a little longer.
I shall be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman on his point about 69·2 per cent. not reaching the 85 per cent. figure. Our figures show that, in the first year after graduation, the average earnings of those graduating from universities in Northern Ireland reach 85 per cent. of the national figure. Our figures and his could be mutually compatible, but we need to exchange further correspondence. The critical thing is that there is an 85 per cent. cut-off in the legislation. The maximum debt for medical students at 1990 prices will be about £7,500, at five times the £1,500 a year when the scheme is mature.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was using the same statistic that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) used in Committee—35 per cent. as against 45 per cent. The figure for England and Wales is 29 per cent.—although I am the first to acknowledge that that simply strengthens the hon. Members' case.
In return, I point out that, as conditions in Northern Ireland have been the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the fact that the participation rate has increased so much more sharply, and is so far in advance of that for Great Britain—I am not sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey took that point in Committee—demonstrates the thirst for education within Northern Ireland, which has overcome some of the grant regime difficulties to which reference has been made in other places over the past 10 years.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East introduced a dangerous theory when he said that it was the common position of all who had spoken in the debate to disagree with the Government. If I had arranged for various of my right hon. and hon. Friends to contribute to the debate in support of the Government, I should be rising at 1.40 am instead of closing at 1.10 am.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East concerning the enterprise culture, I am proud to have with me on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for the economy, the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), because it is by reducing

unemployment and creating jobs that we shall make a contribution to resolving the problems of Northern Ireland.
Overall, Northern Ireland has a proud record of participation in higher education, embracing many of the disadvantaged groups that have been described in the debate and referred to in academic research. I salute that achievement over the past decade, and the Government have committed themselves to monitoring closely the effects of the legislation. I repeat: in the past we have been told that dire things would happen. In fact, good results have consistently flowed from measures that the Government have introduced.

Mr. Stott: I thank the Secretary of State for his presence and for the way in which he has responded to tonight's interesting and mature debate. The right hon. Gentleman must now be aware, as I am, that the consensus among hon. Members in all parts of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies signals a message to all right hon. and hon. Members and to the Government.
I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Beggs) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who tried to kebab me in the kitchen, that I am prepared to stay in the kitchen for as long as it takes, and if necessary to lock horns with them again over important constitutional issues.
The Secretary of State said that amendment No. 2 is technically defective. I have faith in the expert draftsmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is a lawyer, but in view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw it. But I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends, and any other right hon. and hon. Members who care to join us in the Lobby, to support amendment No. 3. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'except for section 2'.—[Mr. Stott.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 108.

Division No. 81]
[1.13 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beggs, Roy
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Kilfedder, James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim
Lamond, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Canavan, Dennis
McCrea, Rev William


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clay, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cryer, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rowlands, Ted






Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N.


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes


Straw, Jack
Mr. Eddie McGrady and Mr. Cecil Walker.


Wallace, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hayward, Robert


Amos, Alan
Hordern, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Ashby, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Atkinson, David
Hunter, Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Jackson, Robert


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby


Boswell, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowis, John
Knapman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bright, Graham
Knowles, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Needham, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Norris, Steve


Conway, Derek
Pawsey, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Powell, William (Corby)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Sackville, Hon Tom


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Day, Stephen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Devlin, Tim
Stern, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Stevens, Lewis


Durant, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Favell, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Thurnham, Peter


Forth, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


French, Douglas
Trotter, Neville


Gale, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Walden, George


Gill, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Goodlad, Alastair
Watts, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Wells, Bowen


Gow, Ian
Wheeler, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Widdecombe, Ann


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ground, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Wood, Timothy


Hague, William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)



Hampson, Dr Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Hanley, Jeremy
Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Hannam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

1.25

Sitting suspended.

1.35

On resuming—

Schedule 2

LOANS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 34, at end insert
(d) make alternative arrangements to ensure that no part of the maintenance loan is used towards the educational costs which may be incurred by both a student's disability and the demands of a course as defined under Schedule 1 to this Act.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 40, at end add
( ) make alternative arrangements for the repayments of loans by disabled persons which take particular account of their disposable income.

Mr. Hannam: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your replacement was not quite so attractive. I hope not to take up too much of the time of the House. I thought that I might take five minutes for every hour that I have been waiting to speak.
These two amendments follow a very helpful meeting that the all-party disablement group had in the autumn with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Attending that meeting were people from various organisations representing students with disabilities, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. They presented to my hon. Friend details of the problems that disabled students face as they pursue higher education. Not only do those students have to cover the extra costs relating to their disability while they are at college; the extra costs continue after they have completed their studies, and right into their earning careers.
At this stage, I consider these to be probing amendments. They deal with those two matters. Although they may not be correct technically, they give us a chance to hear what my hon. Friend has been doing in the review that he promised when he met us and during the Committee stage. The first amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make separate arrangements to cover the extra costs of disabled students—first, by increasing the maximum amount of the disabled students allowance, and by improving its operation; and, secondly, by setting up a fourth access fund for disabled students.
The latter I regard as a very important proposal. The present disabled students allowance is means-tested, so the maximum of £760 is available only to those who are in receipt of full maintenance grant. It is subject to a range of anomalies. There are different regulations for different age groups, and local benefit officers lack detailed knowledge of the regulations.
We want from the Minister a clear commitment that the helpful assurances that he gave at our meeting in November and in Committee will result in alternative arrangements being made so that disabled students will not have to take out higher loans to finance the extra expenses that arise solely from their disability. One could give a range of examples, but communication aids are the most obvious—sign interpreters, note-takers, what are


called versabrailles for the blind and partially sighted, and all sorts of other aids and adaptations that disabled students need.
There is clear evidence that some costs that disabled students have to bear solely as a result of their disability are not being met. The proposed loans system would simply exacerbate those difficulties. It could result in disabled students having to take out higher loans to pay back costs that are not met by the disabled students allowance. That would act as a disincentive to disabled people contemplating entering higher education. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf gave the example of a student who paid £1,302 from her own pocket for an interpreter to ensure that she had the same information as her hearing peers at college. Visually impaired students incur expense in reading and note-taking, such as the assistance of a sighted reader or an electronic braille machine, which can cost about £5,000. A reader can cost £40 a month.
Those sound rather extreme examples—disability organisations are not saying that all disabled students face such high additional costs—but they illustrate the need for a flexible system. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that the costs of some disabled students were in excess of the disabled students allowance. he said that he was reviewing the disabled students allowance and that
the Government recognise that many disabled students face additional costs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 January 1990; c. 222.]
He said that he hoped to make a statement before the Bill was completed.
The amendments allow me the opportunity to ask some questions. First, can the Minister make a statement on the outcome of his review of arrangements for disabled students? If not, when can we expect one? Secondly, will he guarantee that the new arrangements will come into force at the same time as the loans scheme? Thirdly, will he give a guarantee that the disabled students allowance will not be frozen when grants are frozen and loans introduced? Will he give an assurance that he is issuing revised guidance to local education authorities on the administration of the allowance to enable lump payments and to ensure that the LEAs will use the allowance to pay for human and technical support? Will he give an assurance that the maximum level of the disabled students allowance will be raised substantially to ensure that the few students who need much larger amounts, such as those whom I have already detailed, will receive them?
In Committee, the Minister gave no formal commitment to access funds, although he said that he still had an open mind. If we are to encourage more disabled students to participate in higher education, there needs to be a guarantee that their disability educational costs will be met fully or met more adequately. The disability access fund would guarantee the availability of help for extra communications costs and other expenses.
Amendment No. 8 ensures that disability costs are fully taken into account when loans are repaid, so that the loans system does not discourage disabled people from participating in higher education.
The amount of real disposable income available to most disabled graduates can be much less than that available to their able-bodied peers. Many disabled people must meet

extra disability-related daily living costs from their own pockets. They will therefore have less disposable income to repay loans. The take-home pay of one disabled graduate who works part-time as an access officer for a city council is £104 a week. From that, she must pay £20 a week for personal care. She would have to have care costs of more than £270 a month before the independent living fund could make a payment.
The costs of disability can clearly make large inroads into an individual's income. If graduates must repay student loans at rates set according to their earnings rather than their disposable resources, disabled people will almost certainly experience considerable hardship.
Responses to questions that I have recently tabled show that the Department does not hold information centrally on the average incomes of disabled graduates compared with able-bodied graduates. That point was not fully taken on board in Committee. The Minister said that low-income disabled graduates would be protected by the 85 per cent. threshold. However, that misses the point about disability costs. A disabled graduate could be earning 86 per cent. of the national average income—and therefore not be eligible for reduced repayment—but may, after paying the extra costs that disabled people incur week by week, have a reduced income of about 75 per cent. of the national average, which is outside the reduction in or non-repayment of the loan. Also, with the current level of the disabled students allowance, many disabled students already leave higher education with debts to repay because of the extra costs they have incurred while studying.
1.45 am
In conclusion, unless some different arrangements are made, disabled students could find themselves in the position of owing more money than their able-bodied peers at university because they have to borrow to meet their disability-related problems. They then come out and have fewer resources from which to repay the loan because they have to meet the cost of disability from their income after graduation. Furthermore, they have greater difficulty finding part-time work while at university and obtaining full-time employment when they graduate.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the interest and awareness about these problems that he has shown in our meetings. I know that he is looking very carefully into them and I hope that he will be able to respond constructively tonight to these probing amendments which have come from the various disability organisations. I hope that he can tell the House that he will bring forward suitable Government amendments when the Bill proceeds to the other place.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In supporting these amendments, I do not intend to detain the House for any length of time. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has outlined very clearly the concerns of the various disability organisations which have spoken to the all-party group for the disabled and, indeed, lobbied many hon. Members on this issue.
Many of us feel very strongly on this point. The Government have not conceded very much during the progress of the Bill. If there is anywhere where they ought to make concessions, it is in this area. We know of the special difficulties which disabled students face. Some of these are the very basic ones of access to buildings, finding suitable accommodation and travel to and from the


campus and on campus. All that involves expenditure. The blind and the deaf need to obtain special equipment, as has been pointed out, to ensure that they can participate fully in the courses available. Sometimes they need the assistance of a care attendant, and we must remember that care attendants are now liable for payment of the community charge, at whatever level it may be set; that is an additional cost.
As has been said, the earnings potential of disabled graduates is often substantially reduced because of the difficulty of ensuring that they have equality of employment opportunities. It would be a terrible indictment of society if disabled students had to face the possibility of extra borrowing and having to find money from a lower wage to repay it.
The severe disablement allowance has also been referred to. Many people recognise this as totally inadequate; I ask the Under-Secretary to look carefully at the regional disparities that exist in the rulings on eligibility, because this is a major cause of concern. Those involved in the assessment of this award seem unable to decide what the real criteria are. Individuals with similar disabilities are treated differently in different parts of the country, not just for this benefit but in the allocation, for example, of income support. It is important that we have an equal spread throughout the country.
I echo the hope already expressed that we shall hear tonight a positive statement from the Department that special consideration will be given to these matters. I think that the case has been more than adequately made by the organisations involved. In particular, we should like to know whether a fourth access fund will be made available. Such a concession would help many people and give them the encouragement which is so essential.
It is not enough to pay lip service to the integration of the disabled into our society and our education system: we have to show willingness, and if that willingness involves money, I think that this is an area in which the Government should be prepared to concede extra funding.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I want to detain the House for a moment to support the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), in which he set out the reasons why he and his colleagues in the all-party disability group have seen fit to make their representations to the Government. He set out the case at some length and with eloquence. The House is right to spend some time on these important amendments, so that it can satisfy itself that the Government have considered this important problem. Alternative arrangements must be made for people with disabilities, and this is the Government's only opportunity in the context of the new loans scheme.
If one accepts that loans are to be introduced, and if that is the will of the House—although it will not be for want of the Opposition trying to stop the scheme—surely all hon. Members must agree that disabled students should not have to devote any part of the loan to the additional costs of disability in the course of their educational work. That must be a principle with which we all agree. If that is the case, the only way in which the Government can ensure that such students are treated equally with ordinary students is by making some provision to meet the extra costs. Positive financial discrimination is essential if such students are to be put on an equal footing with their fellow students in their lecture rooms and classrooms.
Most people are beginning to think that the idea of meeting the extra costs of disability is the appropriate way to deal with disability as a whole. In the context of education, it is easy to quantify the costs for those who are deaf or blind. The hon. Member for Exeter set out perfectly sensibly the additional costs that are incurred for note-takers, and in providing sign language, interpretation facilities and braille machines. All those costs are easy to ascertain and to quantify. They are substantial costs to the individuals. The Government should consider the new technologies which are available. Recent developments make it possible for students to cope with most disabilities if the costs can be met, although they are often significant.
It has already been pointed out that, after graduation, disabled graduates often have a lower earning capacity than their peers, and there is certainly no guarantee of employment. The disincentive that exists at present under the student grants system will be exacerbated in future.
Although the cost for the disabled student is individually high, the collective provision, in whatever form the Government chose, would not be prohibitive. The proportion of the student population who are disabled is relatively small, so common, collective provision with sensible schemes, which the Government could introduce, would not mean a tremendous additional Treasury bill.
Let us examine the schemes available in other countries. The Scandinavian countries lead the way in exempting disabled students from their loan systems, as such students are given grants. In Sweden, for example, interpreters are provided as a matter of course. In West Germany and America, there are schemes for disabled students. I am told that in Australia counsellors assess the additional needs of disabled students and schemes are put in hand. So there are precedents in other parts of the world to which the Government could turn if they were minded and had the political will to introduce assistance.
The disabled student's allowance, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Exeter, is totally inadequate. It is means-tested, and the conditions operated by various local education authorities vary. Even if the full allowance is given, £765 per annum does not begin to meet the costs that some disabled students face. It flies in the face of the panoply of Government policy announced recently in the document, "The Way Ahead—Benefits for Disabled People".
The Minister for the Disabled and the Department of Social Security went out of their way to try to persuade the House that they were seriously tackling physical and other access, transport, housing and so on, yet this educational measure, if we are not careful and if we do not get it right, will deny access to disabled students. If the Government do not bring forward schemes that measure up to the problem, disabled students will be denied access to further education because of the financial penalties.
Can the Minister tell us what consultations have taken place with the pressure groups and lobby groups which do such sterling work on behalf of those who are disabled? If the Government had gone through the same consultation process that my colleagues and I carried out, they would have been well seized of the urgent need for positive financial discrimination.
We support amendment No. 4, in so far as it relates to special arrangements for disabled students. If the Government are not prepared to make special arrangements to ensure that disabled students do not stiffer, amendment No. 8, which would make special provision


for repayment by disabled graduates, is essential to give any guarantee that in future those who are disabled and who study in our universities and colleages get a fair deal.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have a personal reason for intervening in the debate. The amendments are extremely important, and I hope that the Government will consider them seriously.
I wish to speak on behalf of the deaf, in my capacity as a vice-president of the National Deaf Children's Society and as the parent of a deaf daughter, aged 13. Through the society, I have had much contact with people who are deaf and who aspire to further education. Many have not attempted to pursue the possibility because they cannot afford or even get the support that they need. I also know of people who had secured entry to university courses, dropping out, after taking up their places, because they could not get the support that they needed and the grant was totally inadequate.
That is the position under the existing regulations. If we are to move to a loans scheme, under which additional burdens will be imposed, even more deaf and disabled people will not aspire to further education. If they manage to get that far, they are likely to drop out. That is not in anybody's interest, and the House should not allow it to happen.
We should go further than the amendments propose, leaving aside the fact that we do not like the Bill in any case. I have taken some time to study the position in the United States. The rights and assertiveness of deaf people there are more advanced than in the United Kingdom, where deaf people get one of the worst deals in the developed world. They have to fight for advancement of treatment.
The position in the United States is due to the passage of a law through Congress giving disabled people rights of access to college, university and further education courses. The deaf community saw that law as an opportunity to advance its interests. It is interesting to note that, when the Bill went through Congress, the debates were about ramps, wide doors, wheelchair access and so on—about the physical access of the physically disabled people.
Once it had become law, the deaf community realised that it could be exploited to their advantage. The consequence was that they could bring test cases to require colleges, universities and institutes of further and higher education in the United States to provide the necessary support facilities for deaf people at their expense.
2 am
I am working on a Bill, which I hope will have all-party support, to introduce such a right for deaf people in the United Kingdom. It would give them access to higher education and training and support that they need. The amendments have a much more specific and immediate scope. The hon. Member for Exeter moved them ably and with a great deal of clear factual support.
If profoundly deaf people are to pursue a course at university, or college, or even a training course, many of them require the support of note takers, sign language interpreters, lip speakers, radio hearing aids or other such aids. It is immediately apparent that those needs cannot be met even out of the existing facility and that they should not be a burden to deaf people, who should not have to

take out a mortgage to pay for their education. If they do, it is understandable that deaf people will not pursue a course, because they will not want to take on that burden.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, the consequence would be that they would arrive at the end of the course more indebted than those who are not disabled, yet disadvantaged in securing the higher earning jobs. The least that we should do is ensure that we do not introduce a Bill that makes deaf people's difficulties worse. Unless the amendment is accepted, that will be the direct consequence.
As the hon. Member for Exeter said, if the Government cannot accept the technical nature of the amendment, they must accept its spirit. Otherwise, they will make disabled people much worse off than they are now. Even this Government cannot do that knowingly. They cannot say that they did not know, because we have told them tonight.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hour is late and time is at a premium so I shall be brief.
The amendments are of the utmost importance to disabled students and well-deserving of a firm expression of commitment from this Front-Bench. They merit the support, if necessary in the Lobbies tonight, of everyone who understands their importance. Students with disabilities try so very hard to triumph over handicap and should not be let down by the House.
Amendment No. 4 would require Ministers to meet the extra costs of disabled students in higher education. They can be substantial, especially when they involve personal assistance, not least communication assistance for students who are deaf. Recent parliamentary replies show that only a handful of people now receive the disabled students allowance. Yet voluntary organisations are flooded with requests for help which they are unable to meet.
As a trustee of the Snowdon Awards Scheme, an admirable charity which distributes some £50,000 a year to disabled students in need of financial help to complete their courses, I ask the Secretary of State to consult Lord Snowdon so that he can learn at first hand about the statutorily unmet needs that arise. Ministers have suggested that charities can meet all such needs, but they are overwhelmed by current demand. The Snowdon Awards Scheme can meet less than half the sums requested and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf is in the same position. It is certainly the case that charities are willing to do what they can to help, but they are unequal to the task of providing a comprehensive system of funding. In Standing Committee it was stated for the Government that Ministers were "reviewing the position" with respect to the disability allowance. I hope that the Minister replying tonight will give a definite undertaking both to increase the maximum and to ensure that all local education authorities operate the scheme with humanity and understanding.
Research undertaken by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf into loans systems in other countries shows that three of the nine with such systems exempt disabled students and that all of them provide communication support for deaf students. In several countries, the level of communication support is very high and sign language interpreters are available to deaf students as of right whenever required. This means that deaf students enter higher education, as far as possible, with the same


opportunities as hearing students and can compete on equal terms. Here in the United Kingdom, by contrast, handicap is piled on handicap in that deaf students, among others who are severely disabled, have to run up extra bills during their studies. That is the position now, even before the introduction of the loans scheme.
Peter Large, who is known to and respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House, has expressed his worries about the prospects for its disabled victims when the loans scheme begins to bite. He says
Some disabled people enter higher education to expand their intellect and interests and nothing more. Others hope that qualifications will enhance their employment prospects, but later discover that they cannot find paid work.
We are worried that these disabled students will find it difficult to secure a loan and impossible to pay one off.
They will be doubly handicapped and suffer double despair.
Sadly, all too many disabled graduates fail to find work or succeed in finding only low-paid employment. The recent reports on disability in Great Britain from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys provide a damning picture of the ineffectiveness of the Government's employment services. They show that only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are actually working. That compares with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse—33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent.
These findings shout the need for the amendments, and the Government's own record in terms of jobs offered to disabled people is among the worst of all employers. How many does the Department of Education and Science employ? is the Secretaryof State aware that the earnings of disabled people who do find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees?
The Secretary of State may say that unemployed graduates or those on very low pay will not be required to repay the loan, but amendment No. 8 addresses the fact that even many disabled people in better financial circumstances have to spend all their disposable incomes on the extra costs arising from their disabilities.
The Government's recent document "The Way Ahead", published on 10 January, gives no hope at all to the severely disabled young people with whom the amendments are concerned. A total misunderstanding of the OPCS research has led Ministers to claim that the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance exceed disabled people's extra costs. Nothing could be further from the truth as the independent living fund has so amply demonstrated. Unless the loan repayment arrangements take account of the actual expenses of each graduate, Ministers will be guilty of robbing severely disabled young people of the essential help that they need to live their lives as full and equal members of the community.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on the amendments and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who worked with him in tabling them.
What we now seek is a firm indication that the Government accept the case that we have argued for these amendments. If it is not forthcoming, I hope very much that the amendments will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Jackson: I appreciate the courteous but firm way in which all hon. Members have put their views, and the all-party meetings that I have had with people who are concerned about the disabled, as the Government are. We

are sympathetic to the needs and circumstances of students and graduates with disabilities and want to ensure that they are not unfairly treated.
I shall review the position of students with disabilities and the student support arrangements. They will continue to be eligible for income support and housing benefit. Therefore, they should not generally need access fund assistance with housing costs or as a result of inability to work during the long vacation, because their needs will be covered by the social security system.
Disabled students will also be eligible for help from those access funds, where appropriate, in individual cases. That will be a matter of discretion for the higher education institutions. I note what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We shall consider the suggestion that there should be a special access fund.
Disabled students who are eligible for disabled benefits will continue to receive them. They will also continue to be eligible for the disabled students allowance which is specifically intended to help meet the extra costs necessarily incurred in attending a course.
There is assistance for disabled students from the disabled students allowance, social security benefits, disability benefits, the access funds and—in addition to all that, not replacing it as with other students—the top-up loan. Some institutions make additional equipment arid other resources available to disabled students, as do some local education authorities. One should never forget to mention the valuable assistance from charitable and other voluntary organisations.
I turn to amendment No. 4. We do not want to prevent disabled students from using the loan facility if they choose to do so to meet educational costs, however they might be defined, related to their disability. In practice, it would be hard to prevent them from doing so, because a person's budget is a single budget, no matter what different sources of funding go into it.
The Government are looking at the representations that have been made in support of changes to the level and operation of the disabled students allowance, which is payable with the mandatory grant. We are also looking carefully at the evidence submitted to us by the various groups supporting the interests of those with disabilities to see whether a case can be made for alternative provision for the repayment of the loans.
In relation to both those matters, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I am happy to reaffirm what was said earlier, that we intend to do so before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
If any further action for disabled people is needed, beyond the disabled students allowance and the loan deferment provisions, either now or in the future, the right method is to do so through the regulations that we are able to make under the 1962 Act and under this Bill. We have the flexibility, because the House has voted with us, to enable us to do that.
However, I stress again that the Government are sympathetic to the needs and circumstances of disabled students and graduates. We want to ensure that they are not unfairly treated. It is important to retain flexibility. We are open to persuasion and are demonstrating that approach by looking carefully at the representations that we have received. We have undertaken to monitor the


impact of the operation of the student loans scheme. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment——

Mr. Alfred Morris: Am I right in thinking that the Minister is giving a commitment tonight that the Government will amend the Bill in the way that has been recommended from hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Jackson: We are still considering the position sympathetically. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but the Government will certainly do so before the Bill completes its passage.

Mr. Hannam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his assurance that this is a serious matter, worthy of consideration by the Government, which will result in a statement being made during the Bill's passage. In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has had a thorough consideration in the House and that consideration has shown that it is a fair and sensible way of increasing resources for students, reducing the burden on parents and taxpayers and ensuring, as is the Government's aim, that we have increased numbers of students in higher education. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive the approval of the House.

Mr. Straw: The hour is late. We have had substantial consideration of the Bill today. The measure is worse now than it was on Second Reading on 5 December. It is a bad Bill, badly drafted and an affront to the House in the arbitrary powers that it gives the Secretary of State, but above all it is a bad deal for the student, for the taxpayer and for higher education. We shall oppose its Third Reading in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill is a dangerous step for education. It is unprecedented, because Britain has never gone from a system of grants to one either totally or partly of loans. The legislation that introduced mandatory grants in 1962 is no precedent.
Throughout, the Bill has been an engine with no train. The Government tried to couple the banks as carriages. That very nearly derailed the train. They are trying to couple the universities as carriages, but it is clear that they are still far apart.
There have been only two minor amendments to the schedules in Committee and there has been only one undertaking to consider one of the subjects that has been raised on Report.
The arguments for keeping grants as opposed to introducing loans have been overwhelmingly made. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system to make out their case. The obligation is on them to show

that education access will be increased rather than diminished, but they have not done so. This is an enormous risk and an enormous gamble.
It can be argued that the Government are as isolated at home on this issue as the Prime Minister is isolated abroad on the issue of sanctions. Some Conservative Members are as unhappy with the Bill as they are with the Prime Minister's policy on South Africa.
The Government said that the Bill would produce more resources, but they did not say that those resources would come not from the taxpayer but from the students. They said that students would be better off, but having a larger debt is a funny way of being better off. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have willingly entered into debate, but debate without listening to the responses that they have received is hardly responsible debate.
We do not believe in arguing for rich students to do better at the expense of those who are already poor. We do not believe in arguing for advantage for those who already have advantage if at the same time we have a scheme that will be a disincentive to those who find it most difficult to get into higher education. We do not believe that everybody needs to be on longer courses, but we do believe that those who are required to be on longer courses should not be discriminated against by virtue of that fact.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that education needs investment, non-discrimination, and above all in Britain in 1990, nothing that will prejudice its extension to those who find it most difficult to obtain. My right hon. and hon. Friends representing constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies, made it clear that the Bill is enormously unpopular. It is unpopular among the tens of thousands of students who protested today, their parents, vice-chancellors and principals, and heads of institutions—all of whom also made it clear to the Government how unpopular the scheme is. Arguments adduced over the few weeks that the Bill has been debated also made that clear.
In Committee, we came within two votes of defeating the Government, and tonight we came within 43 votes of doing so with an amendment to postpone the scheme's implementation. At only one stage this evening did the Government have a majority of more than 60, yet they have an overall majority in the House of more than 100.
The Government have been forewarned of the trouble that still lies ahead for them in getting the Bill on to the statute book. The Prime Minister began her ministerial career in education, in a job that won for her the label "Margaret Thatcher, milk snatcher". She will end her career, and take with her the Secretary of State, as "Margaret Thatcher, grant snatcher".
The burden of proof of the need for a change from grants to loans is on the Government. They have failed to discharge that burden of proof. They are risking the educational futures of thousands of people, which is a risk that no Government should be prepared to take. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I urge right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to join us in voting against the Third Reading of this iniquitous Bill.

Mr. Jackson: There is common agreement that we should expand higher education, and the Government are committed to doing so. We demonstrated that by announcing in the Autumn Statement additional funding of £750 million over the next three years. We expect that the participation rate for 18-year-olds will rise from 16 per cent. to 19 per cent. in the near future. However, with growing student numbers, we cannot for ever commit increasing amounts of taxpayers' money to paying for students' living costs. Nor can we expect parents to meet ever-higher parental contributions.
Loans allow us to reconcile conflicting pressures. They mean more money in students' pockets and less of a burden on taxpayers and parents. In international terms, loans are a perfectly ordinary element in student support.
On two previous occasions, I have been unable to complete an anecdote, but I take the opportunity to do so now. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who started us on this long and glorious path, visited Sweden in the course of the studies that lay behind the proposals. He asked the Swedish Education Minister why Sweden, as a model of social democracy, had operated for 30 years a student loans system far less generous than any scheme that the British Government could hope to operate. The Minister explained that they did not believe in taking money through the tax system from the less well-off to give to better-off people, and that loans improved students' motivation and commitment.
That is the testimony from Sweden. Every country around the world that operates a student support system based on loans testifies to its benefits. That will be true of Britain, too. Loans will be good for all concerned. They will provide more resources for students, and reduce the burden on the taxpayer and on parents.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 49.

Division No. 82]
[2.24 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amos, Alan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Favell, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Conway, Derek
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayward, Robert





Hordern, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Janman, Tim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jessel, Toby
Summerson, Hugo


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Walden, George


Lawrence, Ivan
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Watts, John


Lilley, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lord, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Wood, Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Younger, Rt Hon George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norris, Steve
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Patnick, Irvine





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Beith, A. J.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Canavan, Dennis
Quin, Ms Joyce


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Redmond, Martin


Clay, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cousins, Jim
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Flannery, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Kennedy, Charles
Wallace, James


Kilfedder, James
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Kirkwood, Archy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lamond, James
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Livsey, Richard
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McCrea, Rev William



McGrady, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert Wareing.


McWilliam, John



Mallon, Seamus

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

EMPLOYMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. James Paice be discharged from the Employment Committee, and Mr. Chris Butler be added to the Committee—[Sir Michael Shaw, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENERGY

Ordered,
That Sir Ian Lloyd be discharged from the Energy Committee, and Mr. Michael Colvin be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Shaw, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ordered,
That Mr. Malcolm Bruce be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee, and Mr. Menzies Campbell be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Shaw, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Acute Hospital (Antrim)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Rev. Ian Paisley: My Northern Ireland colleagues and I wish to put on record our appreciation of the remarks made today by the Secretary of State and, from the Opposition Front Bench, by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) about our late colleague, Harold McCusker. All hon. Members from Northern Ireland will miss his contribution to our counsels. We salute his memory as a gallant Ulsterman.
A good case does not require long argument. It can be put concisely. The need for acute hospital services in the Ballymoney, Moyle, Ballycastle and Coleraine areas is beyond dispute. I should make it clear for the record that Moyle hospital is not in the Moyle district council area. It is in Larne, and I give my wholehearted support to the campaign to keep that hospital as an acute hospital, just as I should like the Waveney hospital in Ballymena retained as an acute hospital.
In 1987 there was a population of about 88,000 people in the Ballymoney, Ballycastle and Coleraine districts. That was estimated to rise to about 94,000 by the year 2002. At the height of the tourist season, the population peaks at more than 150,000. It is agreed that 320 beds, plus psychiatric provision, are urgently required.
The history of coming to grips with meeting the hospital requirements of the area is tragic. Promises have been made and broken. Decisions have been arrived at after long debate, only to be overturned and overruled, sometimes in an unconstitutional way. But the time has come to take a new step forward to meet the need, and that is what this debate is about.
We need unity. All the past rivalry between members of the medical profession in Ballymoney, Ballycastle and Coleraine districts has been laid to rest. A Northern health and social services board resolution, which was supported by 41 votes to two, support the building of a new, purpose-built acute hospital to replace the workhouse buildings on the Route hospital site in Ballymoney and the piecemeal development on the Coleraine site.
The councils in the areas concerned have now also united and the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance parties have given their wholehearted support, as have the Churches.
The present proposal is to spend £20 million on the Coleraine hospital. After visiting that hospital, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Skelmersdale, said that it was a shambles. We do not want to be involved in the partial rebuilding of a shambles. The proper course is to build a brand new hospital to meet the urgent need. The cost of doing that, according to data in the report of Ceefa Services Ltd.—that report was prepared by the board and the Department of Health and Social Services—would be only 10 per cent. more than the partial rebuild of Coleraine. The board has now decided on an option reappraisal. Talking about money, the Eastern board has been over-funded by £14·75 million, while the Northern board has been under-funded by £8·5 million. Some money is owing to the Northern board.
Therefore, we call on the Minister to ensure that the DHSS in Northern Ireland will back the board and its administrative officers and, recognising the acute hospital

requirements of our districts, will join us in promoting their urgent development in accordance with the wishes of a united community and in keeping with decisions that have already been made in favour of building a new hospital.
The infrastructure of the Coleraine, Ballymoney, Ballycastle district will remain incomplete, and at times dangerously inadequate, until the new acute hospital has been constructed. The year 1997 must become the target for completion and cease to be put forward as a tentative date for commencing the new hospital which we so badly need. Tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) will contribute to the debate and make other important points.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the plea that the Department of Health and Social Services might give its backing to the Northern board in developing a new hospital in the north-east of Ulster and particularly in the Northern board's northern area. As I come from the Eastern board area, naturally I would not suggest that it was over-funded, because it has the problem of regional specialties. However, I recognise that planning has gone on for a long time. It is said that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and one is always suspicious of consultancies and appraisals which produce what the Department might want.
The harsh reality is that, five years ago, the then Northern Ireland Consultative Assembly advised that money should be given to the Northern board to develop that hospital because it was badly run down. The rivalries that normally exist between small towns that want to maintain their own hospitals have been resolved by the community coming together and plumping for a central hospital that is more convenient to the population. That in itself is a reason why the Department and the board should consider not having another appraisal but getting on with the job.
The tragedy is that, if the board had finally decided to go ahead with the updating of the Coleraine site, there would be no demand for another reappraisal which is a waste of money. With the modular plans now available for the Antrim hospital, there is no reason not to proceed with the development of the basic hospital in a green-field site.
Strangely enough, at times the Department can pull money out of the hat like a conjuror. At one stage, the board was told that £11 million would be available for upgrading. When it was considering a green-field site, it was told that £20 million could be made available for the upgrading of the "shambles" site—I use that term in tribute to Lord Skelmersdale, who is responsible for health matters in Northern Ireland, and who described it as a shambles.
The harsh reality is that the site is too narrow, too confined. The work necessary to upgrade it would result, in the long run, in a situation similar to that which arose in south Belfast, where work on a confined site took many years. I plead that time be not wasted, that a decision be taken to go for a green-field site, where work on putting in the modules could start now. The Route and Coleraine sites could then be sold, to the financial benefit of the Health Service.

Rev. William McCrea: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his efforts to have a new acute hospital for the Coleraine-Ballymoney-Ballycastle area erected. In 1977, the Northern health and social services board, with the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services, decided that a new acute hospital should be built in this district. Thirteen years later, we have outdated hospitals in Coleraine and Ballymoney and uncertainty as to the future of hospital services in the northern section of the Northern health and social services board area. As a former member of the Northern Board, I am absolutely convinced that the only rational way to ensure the highest standards of acute services in the area, with its widespread rural hinterland and extensive coastline, is by the provision of a purpose-built acute hospital on a green-field site between Coleraine and Ballymoney.
For many years, the attempts to rationalise acute services in this vast area were wrecked by factional wrangling, rivalry and conflicting interests. However—much to the credit of the medical profession, with its vision, and of elected representatives—a united approach, in the best interests of all, has been forged. The lead given by the medical profession is overwhelmingly endorsed by the community, which, as my hon. Friend has said, is united in its demand for the rejection of workhouse buildings on the Ballymoney Route hospital site and the piecemeal development on the site of the Coleraine hospital.
It is essential to have all hospital services on one site if there is to be proper provision of patient care, if increasingly expensive and sophisticated technology is to be properly used, and if there is to be concentration of professional expertise. There is therefore a unique opportunity to achieve a cohesive hospital service for the whole district.
Throughout the community in the Northern board's area, there is great concern lest the Government force upon it a second-rate acute hospital programme that will not meet present needs, never mind the challenge of the 21st century. The current service is inadequate and inconvenient. The partial-rebuild option ignores the fact that the population is expanding, as well as the Northern health and social services board's commitment to the area 13 years ago.
The good will that would be engendered in the Coleraine-Ballymoney-Ballycastle area by the provision of a purpose-built hospital would hold out exciting possibilities for the future. The patch-quilt approach will never give the north-east corner of the province up-to-date medical facilities such as are enjoyed by the people of the areas covered by the other boards. That is why I join my colleagues in the call for proper hospital provision in the area.
The option appraisal must be carried out as a matter of urgency. I trust that the Minister will regard 1997 as a target date for completion of this new hospital. Money earmarked for the provision of acute services in the district must be carefully guarded to ensure immediate action on the erection of a new acute hospital on a green-field site between Ballymoney and Coleraine. I know that the Minister will have the whole-hearted support of this House if the go-ahead is given. The group campaigning for a new hospital has stated:

A new hospital is now a practicable consideration, and not an impossible dream.
Like my hon. Friends, I urge the Minister to grasp the nettle. If he goes ahead with the provision of this hospital he will be remembered as someone who was forward-looking, someone who did not favour continuation of what Lord Skelmersdale called a shambles.

Mr. William Ross: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will appreciate from the fact that four Northern Ireland Members have spoken that we all have an interest in the debate. Large chunks of my constituency and of that of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) are served by this hospital. The new green-field site hospital will almost certainly be situated in my constituency.
Hospitals are important. I wish that we had more time to debate them in depth. They are necessary to provide the health care that the community needs. Such care is costly, so money must be spent to the best advantage. That means that the location of their most costly items must be at key points. Those locations are primarily decided by geography and population. The Northern Ireland framework, after much debate and argument, was decided long ago. I believe that the relevant geography is the most distant point from the hospital, not the distance between hospital and hospital, which is sometimes used.
The need for a hospital of a high standard in Coleraine was recognised and accepted as a vital component in the framework of hospitals for Northern Ireland. It was understood by people in the area to be served that there would be a queue for capital resources and that Coleraine would have to wait for a while. We expect our place in the queue to be honoured, and in all fairness Coleraine should be at the front of it.
No one denies the need for better facilities at Coleraine. The argument is about whether to rebuild on the existing site or on a green-field site. An option appraisal will decide which is best, and that appraisal should be restricted to those two possibilities.
I am amazed that appraisal is necessary, after so many years of debate. The list of facilities needed, and the detailed cost of such facilities, should have been defined years ago.
Three things need to be decided: first, what facilities; secondly, the area of land needed for the hospital; and, thirdly, the comparative cost of new build and rebuild.
Will the Minister ensure that the option appraisal will be made quickly and in depth, and that its conclusions will be definitive? Will he undertake to accept those conclusions and make the funding available, so that the hospital can be completed by 1997, or at least so that it can be a long way down the road to completion?
The endless delays in hospital provision in Coleraine are making many people wonder whether the Government intend to avoid building an acute hospital there. They are wondering whether this large, important and growing area of Northern Ireland will be discriminated against in regard to the life-saving facilities that it so sorely needs.
My constituents and I are fed up with waiting; it is a time for action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I add my support to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to the former hon. Member for Upper Bann, Mr. McCusker.
After four years as Minister with responsibilities for health in Northern Ireland, I am glad that at last we can agree that a major acute hospital is necessary in the northern area of the Northern board. That is a welcome change from the past arguments about Antrim. I noticed that the hon. Member for Antrim, North had not altered his position on Waveney and Moyle hospitals, but it was welcome to hear that other hon. Members now accept the need for a major new acute hospital, without which we cannot concentrate services and do all the things that I have been trying to persuade hon. Members to accept for most of the past four years.
I am equally delighted that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is now arguing so strongly for a green-field site at Coleraine, which he so bitterly resisted for Antrim. It tends to lead me to the belief that politicians are not the best guardians of these decisions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, 1977 was the time when a decision was taken by the Northern board on what to do. It was decided at that time that Antrim would come first and that there would then be a redevelopment of Coleraine. We have followed that decision since.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister not accept, however, that he is on very dangerous territory when he refers back to what happened concerning the Antrim hospital? He will have to confirm that in fact the Northern board, of which I was a member, made certain decisions one day, and then, because they did not suit the Government at that time, went around to find out what deals it could do to get the Antrim hospital accepted. I think it would be far better if the Minister stayed away from the history of that, because it is certainly very muddy water.

Mr. Needham: I regret having given way. We have a great new hospital at Antrim, which is always first in line for the Northern board's capital scheme, and we are now talking about what we intend to do at Coleraine. As I say, the decision made in 1977 is now being followed.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the point, quite rightly, that we have to consider money in all this. The reason that Ceefa Services Ltd. was taken on was to do an appraisal of the two options—the green-field site and the redevelopment of Coleraine—and see which was best in value-for-money terms. If hon. Gentlemen were part of the devolved administration they were talking about earlier, I am sure that they would have done nothing different from the Government to make sure that the money that was being proposed was being properly spent. CSL found that the green-field site would cost some £40 million, whereas a redevelopment of Coleraine would cost some £11 million.

Rev. William McCrea: Nonsense.

Mr. Needham: I have found some nonsense in a document I have received recently, to the effect that the difference was only 10 per cent. According to the analysis,

the green-field site would be £1 million more per year in annual equivalent cost—that is, 10 per cent. per year for every year of the life of the project.
Having said that, I understand that the board voted for the green-field option and to enter into a discussion with the Department of Health and Social Services to consider the green-field option. The Department quite rightly told the board that, if it felt that the CSL findings were to be set aside because they were, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster so eloquently put it, nonsense, it would have to show evidence of that.
It seems to me to be slightly inconsistent when the argument is made in this document that the CSL option appraisal is a lightweight report—a statement that I do not accept—and then the next statement is that we do not need another appraisal. We cannot have it both ways.
From the Government's and the public's point of view it is very important to ensure that we make the right decision and do it on the basis of the best value-for-money option. My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale said that the Coleraine site is at present a shambles, but no one is suggesting, least of all him, that if it were to be adequately and properly redeveloped it would not be able to provide as good a quality of service as any green-field site.
I must make the point that, if the capital costs are to be compared, Coleraine would have to rise to over £30 million before the green-field site became a viable alternative. Having made its decision for the green-field site, the board rightly decided that it should go for an appraisal and that it should appoint some consultants who were capable of doing that. I believe that we can all agree—the board would certainly wish me to say this—that everyone accepts that matters should proceed as speedily as possible.
As Minister responsible for health, I was the person who decided that the debate on the hospital should be brought forward. It had always been agreed that Antrim would go first and that Coleraine would follow. If it had not been for me bringing the debate forward, we should not have started talking about the Coleraine redevelopment until 1993. I welcomed the fact that we brought the debate forward, and we should now try to reach as speedy a conclusion as we can to decide which site to choose. However, we must make certain—most importantly, it is the board which must make certain—and show the Department and the public that if there is to be an alternative, it is properly costed and worked out.
From the capital programme that is available to the Department, it would be possible to start redeveloping the existing Coleraine site in 1993. It seems extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that we could start a brand new, major project post-Antrim until 1997. In any event, I accept that all of us must work as fast as we can to come to a speedy conclusion so that we can do away with the current uncertainties.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister not aware that, at an early stage, before he arrived in the Department, it was understood that Antrim and Coleraine would go ahead at the same time? It was only because we came down to money problems that Antrim was allowed to go ahead at that time. Can he further assure me that the criteria that are now being applied to Coleraine have been applied to every other hospital that has been built in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I accept that he was there and I was not, but I have looked back through all the papers. The 1977 board decision clearly stated that Antrim came first and Coleraine second. We have proceeded on that basis ever since. As I said, we are now debating this case because I decided, when I became the Minister responsible, that it was right that we should bring the debate forward to try to get on with the matter and to get the problems out of the way as quickly as possible.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the difference between Coleraine, Ballymoney, Moyle, Ballycastle and the Antrim hospitals is that there is unanimity on the new provision at Coleraine? I support those who seek to achieve a new hospital on the green-field site. Will the Minister concede that there is not, was not and is unlikely to be agreement about an imposed decision on hospital provision with regard to Antrim hospital? I assure the Minister tonight that we in Larne want a hospital in Larne. We shall have our own appraisal to present to the Minister shortly on acute services for Larne.

Mr. Needham: That is a ludicrous argument. What we have to provide in the Northern board is not an imposed decision. We have to provide proper acute care in the most modern facilities, using the very best staff with the most up-to-date equipment. It is ridiculous to suggest that, just because there is no agreement in the south of the Northern board area, Coleraine gets the facility that it requires and that such a facility does not exist in the southern part of that area because an agreement does not exist between the politicians and the medical profession.
Our job, as it is for anyone in the Government, is to ensure that we achieve the highest possible quality of care in the southern part of the Northern board area, in the northern part and anywhere else in Northern Ireland. That is what we have done up to now, and what we shall continue to do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not the Minister look forward? I could say many things. It was promised first that Waveney hospital would be an acute centre, and that was overlooked. As the constituency representative, I cannot forget that. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), because I used to represent his area, and still do in another place. The Minister should realise that we need to move forward quickly with the provision of proper actute services in the Ballycastle-Coleraine-Ballymoney area. The medical profession says that there should be a new hospital. Should we not move with the professional men who are supported by the whole community?

Mr. Needham: The board has to reconsider the option appraisal. That is the right way forward for the board. I agree with hon. Members that we should do what we can to get a new acute hospital——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes past Three o'clock.